Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 → Archive 25
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126


Motion of clarification in the Tobias Conradi case (November 2008)

Original discussion

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

In that case, the ArbCom took the line that userspace is not to be used to keep "laundry lists of grudges". This was in a remedy, rather than explicitly given as a principle. The general question of what can and cannot be placed in userspace is addressed also by WP:NOT, and in the end comes down to whether given postings help the mission. Combining the explicit principles in that case, with the thought in the remedy, and policy, gives some relevant concepts on the acceptable use of userspace. The following represents our current interpretation.

Certain kinds of uses are impermissible. These include but are not limited to:

  • Lists of grudges, problem users, diffs, just to make a point.
  • In general, there should not be negative postings of the attention-seeking kind.
  • Blogging: userspace is not for general commentary.
  • Pre-emptive developments running ahead of community or ArbCom sanctions

Certain kinds of uses are permissible:

  • Userspace may be used to warehouse diffs, but only when intended as part of drafting for active dispute resolution.
  • Essays are obviously OK (use Category:Wikipedia essays, and {{essay}}, saying this is what they are). By their nature essays deal with “issues, not personalities”. If they ever cross that line, from the general issue to particular and personal allusions, they lose their privileged status.
  • Drafts of political as well as policy pieces are OK, say ahead of elections. It is helpful if they are dated and headed to indicate this.
  • Support for enforcement of existing sanctions, where there is a real and present need to share information.

Comment by Shoemaker's Holiday

Procedural objection: the case is over a year old, and AGK's proposal could be made policy through the normal procedure of simply editing WP:USER, the official content guideline for such things, or by discussing it on the talk page of same. There is no reason for the Arbcom to get involved, the connection to the case is at best highly tangental, and the Arbcom really shouldn't be in the habit of revisiting old cases simply to make a non-urgent policy rewrite.

Obviously, AGK's good faith is not in question - he was probably simply unaware of WP:USER. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding what is happening here. AGK reformatted the motion - the motion itself was offered by Charles Matthews. Avruch T 04:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, the formatting is unclear, however, this only makes arbcom's rejection in favour of Charles editing WP:USER more important: In the recent RFC on the arbcom, there was a a strong objection to what was seen as Arbcom writing policy. If arbcom decides to actually write policy by fiat, based on revisiting a year-old case, it would cause excessive controversy, all of which could be easily avoided if the Arbcom simply went to WP:USER as respected members of the community and declaring their support for Charles' change. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Considering that WP:USER already makes clear that content is only permitted with the consent of the community, this seems beside the point. Since the motion was drafted after I consulted on the ArbCom list, I'd be surprised if it didn't represent the "current interpretation", as it says. If I'm wrong about that, well, I'm wrong. It seems clearest to proceed in this way, clarifying first. Maybe there will be commentary that could be illuminating. (The clerk is just doing the clerk's job here, but the system has got Procrustean and templated.) Charles Matthews (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Erm, Shoemaker, I do know what WP:USER is. :)
Avruch has succinctly outlined precisely what I'm thinking here: I was clerking this thread, not making a motion. (Incidentally, only an Arbitrator may do that.)
AGK 12:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, the layout was really unclear as to who made the motion. Your signature was the only one near the motion.
On Charles Matthews' point - I'm really uncomfortable with the increase in arbcom power that this motion would represent - it effectively gives Arbcom the right to make policy simply by finding any past case to which the policy can be connected. Charles Matthews makes excellent suggestions for additions to WP:USER, and they could, in all likelihood, be added there uncontroversially by Charles as an editor. But an arbcom declaration in the same line puts any future decisions on the matter outside of the community's decision. It would mean that User page policy would, from then onwards, only be changeable by appeal to Arbcom.
The basic problem is that, as there is no evidence that the community is unable to handle user page policy, nor that community-based means for implementing this have even been tried, going for the "nuclear option" of Arbcom-declared policy as the first option seems, at the very least, to set a bad precedent; and, at the worst, could cause unnecessary controversy and drama. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I can't agree to that. WP:USER is a content guideline, but it clearly needs to be read in the light of other policies, such as WP:NOT and WP:HARASS. Content guidelines aren't free-standing entities in their own little world. I'm sure that is common ground. There are some nuances involved, as the draft makes clear. There should be no need for another Arbitration case to deal with grudge-bearing on the site: once is enough. This is a motion to clarify, and if the same material had been appended in Tobias Conradi as commentary, or had been prompted by a request, I doubt we'd be discussing it in this fashion. At this level of detail, it isn't evident there is a need to write all this into WP:USER, but spelling out some of the considerations a year on makes sense to me. At the very least, some people aren't too aware of the "case law" on this matter. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Seddon

I would like to bring up some issues here. I have no intention of blowing this out of proportions but I had some concerns when reading this request for clarification.

  • Could you provide any recent evidence that the community has had issues with these types of pages?
  • If so, what evidence is there that the community has sought other venues to try and deal with these problems?
  • Has it got to the point where the community is unable to decide for itself?
  • If none of these happened why was this request simply not taken to the talk page of WP:USER?
  • Given that this is a guideline, it is not enforceable, and if, via this clarification it is being made enforceable doesnt it make it policy?
  • I was under the impression that ARBCOM avoided editting or creating policy?

I would be very glad if all of these questions could cleared up for me.

Seddσn talk Editor Review 00:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Ncmvocalist

Had this been an ordinary request for clarification, I don't think there'd have been a problem here. Turning it into a motion that's explicitly stuck back into the main case page is one though - I'm surprised that the 3 of you have abstained to reduce the majority, rather than procedurally opposed given the legitimate concerns here. This motion gives all appearances that ArbCom are becoming legislative.

That said, I don't think anyone strongly disagrees with the proposals itself; rather, it's the manner in which its done. Why the reluctance to put it into policy? Its inclusion doesn't need to be limited to any one content guideline/policy (such as USER); the relevant parts can be put into relevant guidelines/policies (whether its HARASS or NOT or whatever else). WP:NLT was amended just before the Haines case closed so I don't see why this should be any different just because it would involve more than one page. Additionally, the proposals aren't remarkably 'new' - the community have come across these particular scenarios in the recent past and used common sense along with policy, rather than relying on any cases. So amending "case law" as opposed to "legislation" is questionable & unnecessary as far as this issue is concerned - I don't think we have, or ever will look to "case law" to handle what is specified in these proposals.

This should not be a motion to amend a previous case. If the Committee wants to give guidance (on request), it shouldn't be any more than a request for clarification that gets archived on the talk page of the case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:Barberio

The Arbcom are entitled to vote for this resolution if they want to.

They may also vote on a resolution of if the moon is made of cheese.

Neither of the votes can have any effect.

The Arbitration Policy is clear on this, ArbCom have no ability to create new policy by fiat, no matter if they can tangentially link it to a case.

Charles, I think this borders on an abuse of your station as Arbitrator to push for policy changes you want, and you should probably withdraw it and use the normal process of changing policy by consensus. What you ask for isn't greatly objectionable, but this is not the way to do it.--Barberio (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Background note from Avruch

A recent case where the motion offered would have an impact can be found here. I'm sure that Charles Matthews left it out because the principle has wider application and might not fit perfectly with this particular incident. Avruch T 03:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A small point from Fut.Perf.

I stumble over this: "Lists of grudges, problem users, diffs, just to make a point." (my emphasis).

There's a bizarre tendency in Wikipedia-internal jargon, inspired no doubt by that infamous essay, to treat the expression "to make a point" as if it denoted something bad. Worse, it appears that many people use the phrase "you are just making a point!" to mean: "you are saying something I don't like". Let me point out that to make points is the whole point of – well, of what? Language. Communicating. Why on earth would anybody ever write down anything if not in order to get his point across? My point being, please point out more precisely what you mean at that point. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Usually as in "We know where you live". People don't say that to start a conversation. What is another concise way to explain why they say that? Charles Matthews (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I fail to get your point. Are you seriously comparing the collection of wikipedia complaints to a veiled threat of physical violence? (That, incidentally, is a "concise way to explain why they say that" other phrase). – But anyway, on further consideration, I think I agree with Shoemaker's Holiday. There is no indication the community isn't able to decide on its own what the legitimate limits of userspace writing are. As long as the community is not in an intractable, serious and divisive impasse about how to handle this issue, you guys have no business deciding what the policy should be. – By the way, "Pre-emptive developments running ahead of community or ArbCom sanctions" is another one that goes beyond my semantic guessing capacities. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A small point from Jehochman

The second motion specifies what can be kept for the purpose of "dispute resolution". What about keeping lists of diffs or notes about other editors (possibly of a derogatory nature) for elections, such as WP:ACE2008, WP:RFB and WP:RFA? I think it would be good for clarity to explicitly add or exclude such uses. Jehochman Talk 05:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Durova

Committee members, you should be proposing this on the guideline talk page in your normal role as editors. When and if the community tries and fails to resolve such matters and all normal means have been exhausted, then an arbitration motion along these lines might become credible. No evidence has been put forward that normal means have been tried and the initiating motion specifically expresses a desire to get ahead of events. Proactive changes are the community's responsibility. As a body you are the last step in dispute resolution. Both the original motion and the alternate are profoundly out of order. DurovaCharge! 15:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Second comment by Shoemaker's Holiday

Look, I don't want to be difficult about this, but in the WP:ARBCOMRFC and subsequent discussion, the Arbcom's creation of policy was criticised very strongly. This motion does not do the Arbcom any credit, in either form, as it's something that could easily be done as users, and does not need Arbcom to create new policy. Putting it in terms of "You will not be prosecuted if..." doesn't really help matters, nor does discussing shoehorning it into a new case. If a non-arbitrator had suggested it, it would be one thing. But as it is, I suspect this is going to blow up in your face, even though the suggestions are pretty good: They bypass the community, and the community's ability to discuss them or tweak them, and thus give the appearance of arrogance. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

  • Voting section below put into the usual format for these motions. AGK 21:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • There are two issues here. The general principle that user space is for matters that benefit the project, and remains communally owned and subject to community feelings. If used to hold contentious "blame lists" these need to be well justified in line with the traditional principle that once something's over, it's history. If there is contentious problematic material then ultimately it is a wiki page, not MySpace. This is a principle covered in Wikipedia:User pages, and which we referred to and affirmed in our decision "RFAR/Tobias Conradi". But that was all we did. We did not create policy, not change it, we affirmed what was already well established as being written within existing norms.

    Administrators may need assurance that they will not be treated as misusing administrative tools, if they were stricter on deleting or blanking such content that appears to be problematic in user space. That's fair to raise, since ultimately if there were a question, we would be asked to rule on it. I'd feel comfortable saying how I see the aim of that guideline, and how I'd handle such content, and to give assurance/guidance that some kinds of action will not usually be seen as a problem by us, as measured against norms of the community. Those are well within our usual remit. I would not however require Arbcom to write policy or guidelines in doing so. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Motion

(Motion as above)

There are ten active Arbitrators (excluding two who are recused), so six votes are a majority.
  • Support:
  1. Support Charles Matthews (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC) (proposing)
    Comment: the proposal below to move them into a case that will soon be voting is not anything I have a big problem with. They've been looked at here, and if they are in some way "folded" as comment into a case, that will serve. The content itself seems not to be so contentious for the ArbCom, so the draft has done its work. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
    Per FloNight's vote: OK then, this turns into an annexe of a Workshop for something. Others please edit as necessary. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. Clear enough, and will help deal with the issue we've had in which people cite the case as an exclusive, rather than inclusive, list. James F. (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose:
  1. This issue comes up regularly and there is confusion about it so interpretation of the issue by ArbCom will be beneficial. But I also prefer including this in an active case for the reasons stated by Newyorkbrad. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. We'll handle this in Kuban Kazak-Hillock65. Kirill (prof) 21:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. In favor of #2 that is more solidly grounded. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  4. The motion has been blanked. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Abstain:
  1. Although I am in general agreement with Charles Matthews' proposals, and I do not believe any great harm would come of our adopting them in the fashion proposed here, there appears to be some objection that the action proposed would be somewhat legislative in character, i.e., the Arbitration Committee creating or revising policy outside the scope of a pending dispute. Working for the adoption of these ideas either through editing of WP:USER or by proposing them as principles in the pending Piotrus 2 and Kuban Kazak cases, both of which involve disputes over the use of userspace, may provide a more readily accepted vehicle for addressing the issues presented. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
    Per NYB. This is really guidance rather than an actionable provision, but there are better venues available for putting this forward. Kirill (prof) 01:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. I also agree with Brad. --bainer (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


Alternate motion

2) The Committee affirms and clarifies the principle that was stated as a remedy in the Tobias Conradi case:

  1. User space is communally owned. It is generally left to the eponymous user to manage, for the benefit of the project, but within agreed communal guidelines. (The guideline Wikipedia:User page applies.)
  2. While users have wide discretion to use that space as they see fit, it is the Committee's understanding of present communal "best practice" and consensus, that lists of fault-finding diffs, users described as "problem users", negative postings, and other matters of a generally uncollegial kind, should be written only if needed, kept only for a limited period, and only for imminent use in dispute resolution or other reasonable and short term dispute handling. They should not be allowed - deliberately, through passage of time, good faith, wilful allusion, or neglect - to create some kind of perennial "hall of shame" or list of "disapproved, shunned or negatively viewed users".
  3. The Committee also notes that the community has long held that user space is not to be excessively used for blogging, promotion (including unreasonable self-promotion), and various other purposes.
  4. Users are encouraged to avoid keeping such content on the wiki when there is no good cause. Uninvolved users and administrators are encouraged to be willing to check whether such pages may be removed, if they appear to be dormant, redundant, or not presently "live".
  5. The Arbitration Committee affirms that it will not usually consider users who blank or (if necessary) delete such matters in user space, to have abused their editing or administrative access, provided:- the content was broadly of the types above, the deletion or blanking was in good faith, discussed (if possibly "live"), not excessive, and the matter handled courteously and reasonably, with administrative deletion avoided unless either egregious, agreed by usual processes, or historic revisions are being persistently linked (on or off wiki).
  6. As with other deleted content, provision of the content of such deleted pages to the userspace "owner" is at administrator discretion, if reasonably useful for future Wikipedia community purposes, and the user has good reason and appears to be requesting it for good faith purposes. Administrators should be aware that pages of this kind may contain egregiously (unhelpfully) disruptive, defamatory and/or privacy breaching material, and should redact these from any text forwarded, if they decide to do so.
Nothing written above is intended to discourage recording support and evidence concerning enforcement of an existing sanction, where there is a real and foreseeable project benefit to sharing information. However such matters should ideally be on a case page rather than userspace, where one exists.
There are ten active Arbitrators (excluding two who are recused), so six votes are a majority.
  • Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC) I think this is how it should be said. #5 could be redundant or useful, I can't quite decide.
  2. Support as an analysis of policy and guidance to users as to how the committee is likely to view their questionable user sub-pages. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. Fine, although this could be condensed somewhat. Kirill (prof) 17:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  4. Whatever - no surprise that FT2 and I write things differently. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    Concur. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  5. Insufficiently concise, but yeah. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose:
(move to abstain) Per my comment on the original motion and I'll explain further. I don't think we should use new motions for old cases as tools to address current issues unless absolutely necessary. Our rulings are not suppose to set precedents for future rulings or set policy, so unless an previous ruling needs to be adjusted for an serious error in a Fof or a remedy needs to be adjusted, cases ruling should be left unchanged. The issue of the Committee writing policy and guidelines is of great concern to many members of the Community. I think that we need to be sensitive to these concerns by limiting our use of our policy/guideline interpretation to active situation where clarification is needed to clear up a problem. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC) strike comment since moving to abstain but largely my thinking remains unchanged that new motions on old cases should be reserved for addressing current concerns directly related to that case. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I quite understand the concern. If, though, remedies cannot in some sense be "promoted" to Principles in a case, retrospectively, then I think the way for example the Cla68 case was drafted seems less satisfactory. If we have to proceed from remedy "A, B and C shouldn't do negative thing X" by simply widening the list of editors, then we have some problem. "Negative thing X" should then have been thought of as a Principle, in the terms "Doing X is negative for the project, at least under the following circumstances." And the "circumstances" would need to be drawn up broadly. I think this is a recipe for verbiage. Having indicated "X is negative" in a remedy, the transition to "no one should do it, as far as we're concerned and in normal circumstances" is what people should read. We are not going to get everything tidily expressed, and clarifying our view later and when more bad tricks have been found is just housework, in my view. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Abstain:
  1. Per my comment on the original motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. My above comment stands but in the spirit of collegiality, I change my vote to abstain to assist in closing the motion. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for appeal: PHG (December 2008)

Original discussion

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

Franco-Mongol alliance arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Statement by PHG

Dear all. During the nearly 9 months since the March 2008 Arbcom ruling concerning my case (User:PHG/ Franco-Mongol alliance), various important new facts have come to light, which I believe warrant a review of my case and an official rehabilitation of my contribution to Wikipedia. These new facts relate to the revelation that 1) the secret “Independent verification” decisively used by Arbcom in its ruling against me relies on essentially improper evidence 2) I have continued contributing a very large amount of high-quality material to Wikipedia, continuously displaying high editorial standards 3) I believe the case against me had been improperly orchestrated over a period of several months by a user (User:Elonka), who, I am sorry to say, has since shown to be an extremely controversial editor.

1) Improper "Independent verification"

Although I was able through the Arbitration Worshops to properly respond to all accusations made against me (See: Response to Elonka, Response to Shell Kinney etc…) the Arbcom decisively relied for its final ruling on an alleged “Independent verification” of the sources by User:Sam Blacketer acting as scrivener, which only recently finally came to light (See: Report on use of sources by Sam Blacketer). Despite the fact that this reports had been hidden for months, something I believe quite improper in terms of procedure, the reading of it reveals that it is based on either gross misunderstanding of the source material (such as Sam Blacketer, whom I otherwise respect, making a case against me based on his confusion of the French noun "pendant" (=counterpart) with the preposition "pendant" (=meanwhile), or even errors in English vocabulary, claiming that "timing an offensive to coincide with another" would actually mean that these offensives are "coincidental"), or misrepresentation of my contributions, putting into my mouth things I never said or wrote (See: Response by PHG). I strongly dispute any ruling that relies on such inexact analysis of the facts. It is beyond me what the motives of Sam Blacketer would be, except for the fact that he seems to be very close to Elonka, since he privately counselled her during the request for the recall of her Adminship [17]. At the very least, it is a case of some basic misunderstanding of the facts and sources, and it seems quite worrying that an Arbcom ruling could be passed on such wrong premises. All my contributions have always been done in good faith, as recognized by the Arbcom [18], all my references have always shown to be exact and existing (See introductory statement by Sam Blacketer), and beyond the possibility of variations and accidents in the interpretation of the sources by any individual, I do not believe that anything like voluntary misrepresentation of sources on my part has ever been shown.

2) Continuous quality contributions

Secondly, I believe it has become obvious that my contributions are continuously of the highest quality: I have continued making important contributions to Wikipedia, continuously showing great respect for editorial rules. I believe my contributions during these 9 months amply show in a variety of subjects the nature of my editing: detailed contributions on little known subjects of cultural interaction. In spite of what I tend to think are faulty procedures and unfair characterizations, I have managed to overcome my disappointment, and endeavoured to keep providing high quality content to Wikipedia, in the areas I like most: little-known instances of cultural interaction through the ages. I believe my contributions have continuously been some of the best Wikipedia has to offer. I am particularly proud of some of the articles I created or expanded since March 2008, date of this Arbcom ruling:

MY ARTICLE CREATIONS since March 2008:
Wooden cannon Johann Caspar Horner Yanmar 2GM20 Torpedo boat tender Jean-Samuel Pauly Arcadio Huang Michael Shen Fu-Tsung Philippe Couplet Ok-khun Chamnan Kosa Pan France-Thailand relations Siamese revolution (1688) Maria Guyomar de Pinha Sangley rebellion Battle of Zhenhai Siamese method Siege of Bangkok Shanhai Yudi Quantu Wanguo Quantu Cheonhado Template:Foreign relations of Thailand Phan Thanh Gian Nguyen Phuc Canh Capture of Saigon Template:French Indochina Tonkin campaign Template:Sino-French war Le Van Khoi revolt Le Van Khoi Dictionarium Annamiticum Lusitanum et Latinum Yangwu France-Japan relations (19th century) François de Casembroot Tokugawa Akitake Edward St. John Neale Ansei Treaties Treaty of Amity and Commerce between France and Japan Murayama Tōan Japan-Thailand relations Guillaume Courtet Gustave Duchesne de Bellecourt Siméon Bourgeois Battle of Palikao Jean-Baptiste Cécille Guy Tachard Simon de la Loubère General Desfarges Charles Rigault de Genouilly René Charbonneau Pierre d'Espagnac Chevalier de Beauregard Claude Céberet du Boullay Louis Laneau Jean Antoine Théodore de Gudin Henri Nicol Charles de Montigny Sieur de Bruno Chevalier Milard M. Feraud France-Burma relations France-Vietnam relations French assistance to Nguyen Anh Jean-Baptiste Chaigneau Prosper de Chasseloup-Laubat Treaty of Versailles (1788) Charles Louis de Fredy de Coubertin Olivier de Puymanel François Pallu Pierre Lambert de la Motte Ignace Cotolendi Compagnie de Chine Joseph Marchand Jacques Vigouroux Duplessis Maupérin Michel-Étienne Turgot Artus de Lionne François-Isidore Gagelin Jean-Charles Cornay Jean-Marie Dayot Philippe Vannier French frigate Némésis (1847) Hyacinthe de Bougainville Jean-Louis Taberd Charles Ragon de Bange Léonard Charner Dominique Lefèbvre Charles Kuwasseg Jacques Duchesne Pierre Henri Dorié De Bange 90mm cannon Lahitolle 95mm cannon Jean-Baptiste Verchère de Reffye Reffye cannon Montigny mitrailleuse Joseph Montigny Claude Etienne Minié Template:Groundbreaking French weapons of the 19th century François Prélat Casimir Lefaucheux Hippolyte Marié-Davy Antoine Treuille de Beaulieu Canon-obusier Canon-obusier de 12 Valée system Jean Maritz Canon de 12 Gribeauval Florent-Jean de Vallière Jean-Ernest Ducos de La Hitte La Hitte system Year XI system Nec pluribus impar Jean-Jacques Keller French weapons in the American Civil War Tamisier

OTHER MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS since March 2008:
Paris Foreign Missions Society Sino-French War Mitrailleuse

I have also contributed hundreds of high-quality images on Commons [19], on a total of about 3,000 I have uploaded so far (most of them photographs taken by me in museums around the world: See: My photographs)

3) Suspicions of harassment, off-wiki canvassing and team-tagging

Lastly, I believe the case against me had been orchestrated over a period of several months by a user (User:Elonka) who has since proven to be a very controversial contributor, eventually even refusing to honour a pledge for recall she had made to the community. I do not wish to attack Elonka, whose contributions are not always negative, but I only wish to show the lengths to which she went in attacking me and in trying to misrepresent and discredit my contributions. Further, I challenge the fairness of proceedings of which the main accuser has now revealed herself an extremely controversial editor.

Even before the ruling, I believe I had shown that all of Elonka’s accusations against me were inexact (See: Response to Elonka). The nature of her actions have become ever more noticeable to the community as a whole, prompting a massive movement for the recall of her Administrator status Elonka recall. Finally, she refused to honour her recall pledge, just as she had refused to honour our mediation agreement (to describe the Franco-Mongol alliance as “an alliance, or at least an attempt to an alliance”). This strongly suggests that the actions of Elonka against any user, past and present, should be looked upon with suspicion.

As a matter of fact, between August 2007 to June 2008, I was hurled accusations after accusations almost daily, simply because I would not comply with her own version of the Franco-Mongol alliance (an article I created). She knew very little about the subject, but nonetheless became very aggresive, a pattern which has been repeating itself since then in disputes with other users. Basically, I had been trying to gather as many facts and references as possible on the subject (as many as 400 references at the highest point [20]), whether she insisted on a one-sided short version only describing “attempts towards an alliance”, destroying about 300 proper references in the process ([21]). To gather support for her cause, Elonka relied on on-wiki and off-Wiki canvassing of uninvolved users, a few cases of which randomly came to light (Adam Bishop Folantin Latebird Haukurth Paul Pieniezny), probably only showing the tip of the iceberg: I believe Elonka resorts to extensive off-Wiki canvassing in her disputes, freely misrepresenting her opponents, and that the same group of supporters propping up in every dispute is suggestive of tag-teaming. She makes unfair attacks on opponents through off-Wiki e-mail, a fact that occasionally surfaces (See: User: Mathsci), and something which I suspect she has done extensively in my case. Since the ruling, Elonka’s supporters have been practicing editorial cleansing, for example suppressing perfectly historical mentions of the relations between Europeans and the Mongols, such as Edward I ([22] [23]) Philippe le Bel ([24]) or Elonka herself deleting proper referenced information in Jacques de Molay ([25]) or the House of Lusignan ([26]). This is in itself a negation of historical knowledge, in denial of Wikipedia's ideal to be "The source of all knowledge". Following the ruling, Elonka tried to further pursue me by misrepresenting my contributions, such as when I created the article France-Japan relations (19th century): she abusively portrayed it as being “related to medieval history” in order to have me blocked (which an unsuspecting Administrator did), although I was properly abiding to my restrictions [27]. In Mongol-related articles, she has kept making non-referenced assertions, and removed the « Reference needed » tags inserted by others [28] to favour her own version of things, in total disregard of the most basic editorial rules.

Conclusion

I thus request that this ruling be overturned, for the multiple reasons that the “Independent verification” the Arbcom has decisively relied on appears to have been quite improper, that I have continuously proven the quality of my work with great editorial contributions and quality and utmost respect for Wikipedia editorial rules, and that my main accuser has proven to be highly controversial and untrustworthy, and has resorted to unfair methods in trying to discredit me. I love the Wikipedia project, and wish that the fairness and quality of the Arbitration Committee can be demonstrated by its ability to correct the harm and injustice that has been done to me. Best regards to all. PHG (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


Uploads on Commons. With about 3,000 images to date, I am probably one of the biggest uploaders to Wikipedia Commons [29]. Most of the photographs in question are photographs I take in museums around the world See: My photographs. I also sometimes upload images from old books, with all the intricacies and copyright troubles that it might sometimes entail. Durova has pointed out a few issues in my uploads. One seems to be a copyvio, as the author apparently died in 1940. My apologies for that oversight: I have placed a request for deletion at Commons. Several others regards the old French encyclopedia Encyclopedie Larousse Illustree, published in 1897 (there is one at my familly's home to which I have access during holidays). Durova claims that the images in that encyclopedia might not all be free as some of the authors of the images might have died after 1937. Well, honestly I don't know: the Encyclopedie Larousse Illustree is a collective work, and most of the drawings do not have names attached or referenced to them. Her comments however enlightened me on the fact that these same images would be OK on the English Wikipedia with a pre-1923 publication notice. Wonderful! I have started transferring these images to en:Wikipedia, requesting deletions from Commons at the same time.
Lastly, Durova discusses about several of my drawings for which she obtained deletions back in April 2008. These were drawings I had made based on photographs of ancient artifacts (mostly ancient Greek), thinking that I could contribute valuable knowledge to Wikipedia without copyright issues. Nobody is perfect, and I didn't know that in fact this can be considered as derivative work. I am not a legal expert, but accepted that the images should be deleted. Durova seems to hold against me that I said that "I will probably redraw these contributions in the future without any link to the original photographs". Well, sorry, I am not a native speaker of English, but I think it means just that: drawing without any link to the original photographs, which means in a way that does not infringe on the photographer's artistic rights. From what I understandood of the discussion back then, and the advice given by other Wikipedians, this means drawing in a rather abstract way, without influence from the photographer's originality (in a way we often see in history books). Well, in any case, I didn't even bother making the exercise: I'd rather stay away from such litigations. Cheers PHG (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I am delighted and honoured to reprint here a very nice (public) comment which Durova kindly made to me tonight which I think helps put things into perspective: "I do want to say (although it's not pertinent to the appeal) how impressive the vast majority of your uploads are. You are close to being a great editor. The things you spotted at Les Invalides particularly are admirable." [30]. For those who are interested, this is about the photographic material I have been contributing to such articles as Jean-Jacques Keller, Florent-Jean de Vallière, Gribeauval system, Valée system La Hitte system etc... Thank you Durova and best regards to all! PHG (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Upon review, it seems that most of the images Durova is mentionning would be coverable under pre-1923 licensing on En:Wikipedia. This is a great idea, and I have absolutely no issues with that! Cheers PHG (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I am not aware of PHG ever accepting responsibility for the problems that they have caused. Instead, they have resolutely maintained that they never did anything wrong, and where I have spot checked, they appear to have continued the same pattern of editing that tends to biase Wikipedia articles toward their own world view, at the expense of neutral point of view, verified by reliable sources. I oppose removing sanctions, or allowing sanctions to lapse. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to publish original research or ahistorical fringe theories.

The appeal above consists of intense wikilawyering and attempts to divert attention from the real issue. It should be rejected, and the Committee should consider whether to stengthen or extend the existing sanctions. Please look at PHG's contributions since the sanctions were implemented and see if they follow Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines, or not. A valid appeal, in my view, would list the prior problems, state what has been done to correct them, and ask for sanctions to be lifted. Seeking to blame others is a non-starter in my opinion.

If PHG has made improvements since the last time I checked, which hopefully might be the case, it would be best for their mentor to make a statement saying so. I think any appeal filed would be more convincing if the mentor confirmed it. Jehochman Talk 16:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment to User:Dr. Blofeld: I am a frequent defender of content contributors. In PHG's case, he added content that often failed neutrality or verifiability. Subtle inaccuracies that look good are a severe threat to the encyclopedia. Somebody who writes stuff that is 90% accurate is not excused for continuing to add 10% inaccurate content after it has been pointed out to them numerous times. If only PHG were not so stubborn, they might learn to do better, and those percentages could come to a much more favorable ratio. At present, the value of what they contribute must be weighed against the very great expense of checking and repairing all their work. I am especially concerned about the careless attitude towards copyrights, verifiability, and neutral point of view. Jehochman Talk 20:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

PHG is a very hardworking editor whose realms of interest are scholarly and encyclopedic. He deserves our collective thanks for his dedication. That thanks, though, must be shared with weighty concerns. If only he adjusted to feedback, neither the arbitration nor his restriction would have become necessary. He continues to assert that the case against him had its origins in conspiracy and vendetta. These claims, to the best of my knowledge, are untrue. I uncovered dozens of invalid copyright claims in his Commons uploads--all encyclopedic material that could have been transwikied with nonfree image use rationales--yet he preferred to speculate that I was either incompetent or Elonka's puppet and after weeks of discussion those images were deleted.

Elonka doesn't pull my strings; I supported the recall request on her. But that is unrelated to this matter and as far as I know she has been correct here. These unsubstantiated allegations of corruption have continued long enough. In the heat of an arbitration case such statements might be forgiven, but the better part of a year has passed and this is not PHG's first appeal. His accusations amount to a long term campaign of personal attacks which seeks to undermine the clout of several hardworking people. This is unacceptable behavior. If it continues additional sanctions may become necessary. DurovaCharge! 16:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

To Count Blofield, that copyright issue was handled many months ago. The depth of the problem was understated in my previous post. Unfortunately PHG also had to be blocked for several days on Commons as that community was resolving it. At the proposed decision talk page for this arbitration, after those images had been deleted, PHG stated his intention to reduce his source documentation in future uploads so that his claims of copyright ownership over derivative works would become more difficult to uncover. I will probably redraw these contributions in the future without any link to the original photographs.[31] I was very surprised to see the Committee continue to vote in favor of a finding that he acted in good faith after even after he posted a declaration of intent to continue violating the law. Suffice it to say that this does not make my responsibilities as a Commons administrator any easier. DurovaCharge! 18:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Following up in the area I know best, I've reviewed PHG's most recent month of activity at Wikimedia Commons where he is under no restriction. 13% of his uploads (23 of 174) have inadequate or unacceptable sourcing. This includes one conclusive copyvio, a majority of of inconclusive copyright status images, and several items taken from personal homepages and blogs. The full report is available for review User:Durova/Problems with PHGCOM uploads at Wikimedia Commons. PHGcom is a prolific editor who derives material from three languages; it would be a very large undertaking to review his complete history. Fellow Wikipedians may regard this as a sample of the likely result if his restrictions came to an end at this site. DurovaCharge! 06:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
One more note on why this evaluation is so pessimistic. In addition to the rest, I have long suspected that the deleted images described in my case evidence were deliberate copyright evasion. It has to do with a quirk of copyright law. Photographs of two dimensional PD artwork are public domain, but photos of three dimensional PD artwork get a photographic copyright. Nearly every pencil drawing PHG uploaded were copies of other people's photographs of three dimensional public domain artwork. DurovaCharge! 20:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Shell Kinney

Unfortunately, this is simply a rehash of the numerous other statements PHG has mode about this case. He apparently still feels everyone but himself was either incorrect, incompetent or acting in bad-faith. There are a lot of editors who believe he makes excellent contributions, and that can only improve if he can learn to accept and respond to feedback. Since he so strongly feels that his actions in regards to this subject were appropriate, I see no way to remove the restrictions at this time. I would also recommend that the Committee consider reminding PHG that continuing these false claims and attacks on other editors is frowned upon. Shell babelfish 17:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Major thanks to Durova for taking the time to compile such a complete overview. This, along with AGK's observations offer enough additional concern that instead of just opposing lifting the sanctions, I also strongly feel that a review and possible extension of the sanctions is appropriate. Shell babelfish 02:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Dr. Blofeld

I've always found PHG an extremely valuable and hardworking editor whose work to me has always appeared scholarly and encyclopedic. Editors who contribute content that he does should be warmly accepted not driven away. He undoubtedly deserves respect for his dedication to wikipedia. However the claims of original research and possible image copyrights do need questioning but I am certain that the claims are not as far reaching as is claimed. I am convinced that this in no way outweighs the overwhelming positive he has contributed to project and am also sure that he would make fully certain that he accepts any possible error he made and not to do it again, and is given a second chance. Please don't let us lose another valuable editor. Bascially PHG please don't use original research or violate copyright, keep to the rules and writing the best encyclopedia articles you can and try to listen to the views of others even if you think they are talking rubbish. Reply "OK". End of problem. Everybody deserves to contribute to wikipedia and a second chance, particularly editors of his calibre. Can you please make an effort to sort it out with Elonka and continue editing as before without the problems. I think the situation was and has been blown out of hand in all honesty. Best of luck editing. Count Blofeld 18:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

PHG has asked me to comment here. During a previous appeal, I noted that Siege of Bangkok relied on 3 primary sources, namely three contemporary accounts of people involved in the events. This still seems to be the case. I randomly sampled Hyacinthe de Bougainville written just over a month ago: most facts about his life before 40, mentioned on the corresponding French WP page, do not appear. The articles are quite different. It would surely have been possible to have used the detailed published biographical notes on Bougainville's life from [32] or articles from dictionaries of French biography. PHG's account seems a bit quirky and anecdotal: the 1824 mission was primarily a political, diplomatic and commercial venture; this is not made clear in his article which seems to blow minor details a little out of proportion. Anyway, this was just one sample where better and more detailed sources could have been used. That's my 2 centimes worth. Mathsci (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

One extra comment. I have as it happens recently been helping to improve and source the articles on the House of Ibelin. One of the articles on the multiple Guys of Ibelin originated with PHG: Guy of Ibelin (died 1304). I see the same quirkiness and pointiness there. Again good secondary and primary sources were not identified and one event was blown out of proportion. Mathsci (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Response to angusmaclellan: like Guy of Ibelin (died 1304) and Franco-Mongol alliance, Hyacinthe de Bougainville appears to have been constructed from material in France-Vietnam relations. Here a biography was written starting from a single non-event, elevated to high espionage and a misrepresentation of the sources concerning the modus operandi of French missionaries. PHG is excellent when he writes articles about gunsmiths; however, his accounts of prominent figures, e.g. 19th century French government ministers, are heavily influenced by his prior work on France-Vietnam relations. This method of writing has resulted in unbalanced, inadequate and poorly sourced biographies of Charles Rigault de Genouilly ‎and Prosper de Chasseloup-Laubat. The French government has provided the standard biographies of these politicians on its website. With a dedicated mentor, this systematic problem with spin-off articles could probably be avoided. Mathsci (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by YellowMonkey

I have only been looking at PHG's contributions to the French colonial era in Vietnam and I think his edits are constructive and within policy in that topic. Obviously I have edited some of these articles as well.

Statement by user:angusmclellan

I have no concerns about the work PHG has done since the last visit here. I don't see Mathsci's comments as regards Bougainville fils as being entirely fair. It's a start, it doesn't contain any obvious disinformation, and it can be improved upon. That's how we work.

As the remedies which PHG asks to have reviewed, I believe that this is worth the committee's consideration. I would be concerned at the lifting of all restrictions given the problems that exist between PHG and those other editors interested in the intersection between Mongols and Crusaders. But perhaps the topic ban might be narrowed somewhat?

I hope that PHG will rethink his attitude towards Elonka et al. Even if he cannot change his opinion, he must change his behaviour. But I do not believe the time is ripe for the committee to intervene in this dispute as the community has ample other tools at its disposal. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Elonka

PHG (talk · contribs) does a lot of good work for the project, but when it comes to the topic area of medieval history, I am concerned that PHG still does not seem to understand or even acknowledge the reasons for his topic ban. To continue to protect the project, I feel that it is best if the ban remain in place, and it may even be worth considering an extension, since the original ban will be expiring in a few months. I have reviewed PHG's statement above, and see that many of the diffs he is providing are repeats from the Franco-Mongol alliance case. He is continuing to re-hash things that were said several months ago, going back all the way to 2007. By the way, as a progress report on article cleanup since the case, I am sorry to report that though we have worked through dozens of articles so far, we are still working on cleanup, working through the articles that were affected by PHG's POV-pushing, but we still have several more yet to go. There have also been recent comments of concern, as while we've been working on cleanup, PHG has been arguing at some talkpages with the same demeanor that led to the ArbCom case in the first place. To be clear, he is not violating his ban, since he is still allowed to post at talkpages. But as recently as this week, he continues to accuse others of improper deletions, continues to insist that we should give undue weight to an alleged alliance between the Europeans and the Mongols, and continues to insist that quotes from primary source documents, such as medieval correspondence, be returned to the articles. See his comments at Talk:Jacques de Molay[33] and Talk:Guy of Ibelin (died 1304).[34] It is frustrating to me to see PHG react in this way, because he does such an enormous amount of useful work in other project areas. However, with regret, I think it is best that PHG's topic ban remain in place. --Elonka 02:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Akhilleus

I think the ArbCom ought to take a second look at this, because I believe PHG's topic ban ought to be extended to indefinite. PHG clearly has no intention of ever examining his editing behavior to see if any element is problematic, and thus I believe he should be prevented from inserting his idiosyncratic original research into Wikipedia articles. If the project's goal is to create a useful reference work (rather than a social club), editors such as PHG--who are well-meaning, but in the dark about research methods--need to be recognized as a serious danger. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Adam Bishop

I don't follow what PHG does outside of medieval history topics; but he certainly never gave me any reason to believe his own advertising on the medieval articles. Sometimes I wonder whether he is even a real person or just a bot repeating the same statements over and over again - he contributes quality articles, fully sourced with the best references, etc etc, and that was always demonstrably false with the medieval topics. He never seemed to understand our objections, never understood that we were trying to help, and apparently believed that editing "his" articles meant that we were destroying his work. He frequently referred to Wikipedia policies that had nothing to do with the situation, as if random guidelines were universal laws designed specifically to protect him. My only recent interaction with him, a couple of weeks ago, was essentially exactly the same as it was a year ago, so he does not seem to have changed. (I expect he will now copy-and-paste a response detailing just how excellent an editor he really is, but every time he does that I am less and less inclined to believe him.) Adam Bishop (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Dr.K.

Hello All. I am here at the gracious invitation of PHG and I am glad to provide my take regarding PHG. I have met PHG on and off over the past year or so and I have cooperated with him on a few of his articles. I have also succesfully nominated some of his articles for DYK. I find PHG to be a very capable, intelligent and friendly editor, an asset to Wikpedia and a precious resource who, in my opinion, enhances diversity and inclusiveness in the project. I also find many of his articles fascinating, the topics eclectic and his writing excellent. I understand that he has been placed under editing restrictions, (due to past conflicts on older articles on which I am not taking a position because I am not familiar with either the topic or the issues involved and in any case I would not second-guess any decisions made), which he now appeals. I have advised PHG on his talk page to refactor the comments of his appeal to the Arbcom because I find that he does not need to divert attention from his excellent record under probation by referring to his disputes with other editors. Under the sanctions imposed by the committee his behaviour has been exemplary, his cooperation with his mentor has proceeded without problems and his adherence to Wikipedia policies has been very good. This progress alone warrants the lifting of the sanctions for the symbolic remainder of three months. The remaining period is so short it is obviously symbolic and not really substantive. So what we are really arguing here is if we are ready to return an unburdened PHG back on Wikipedia. To answer this question we have to ask ourselves if PHG's future contribution to the project will be positive and if PHG has succesfully fulfilled his probation and mentorship requirements.I think that the answers to both questions, given his record under probation, have to be positive. The only thing I would like PHG to do is to refactor his comments to eliminate any reference to a dispute with other editors. This dispute only clouds his otherwise strong case for lifting the largely symbolic three months of remaining sanctions against him. Dr.K. (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by FocalPoint

I have been notified about this request by PHG.

If the subject is to end the restrictions imposed on PHG earlier, since he has followed the rules, did not seem to contribute to any disputes with negative results and since he has positively contributed, my answer is yes, end the ban now.

My recommendation to PHG for now and for the future is to continue the good work and to passionately fight for what he thinks is right ... BUT ... if after sometime there is still strong resistance... to stop fighting in that field. Yield. Sometimes there might be a good reason behind it. Some other times not, but in both cases, stop fighting there and pick another issue. This is my suggestion which I also gave in his talk page.--FocalPoint (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by AGK

The track record of PHG at Commons (he contributes as PHGCOM (talk • contribs)) ought to be considered germane to any evaluation of his current enwiki restrictions. Durova, a Commons administrator and mightily experienced contributor, has compiled a critical analysis of it at User:Durova/Problems with PHGCOM uploads at Wikimedia Commons. That report details extended analysis of PHG's uploads to Commons. Whilst the majority of his uploads—they number hundreds—are soundly sourced and high in quality, a small proportion of them feature deliberately sparse copyright information. (Again, see Durova's report for substantiation of that claim.)

In some cases, it appears, PHG has deliberately opted to deviate from his usual habit of liberally providing copyright information and instead omitted certain data in order to skirt copyright restrictions. For example in one upload he claimed a photograph was taken in a period "circa 1885"; it was later discovered that the photo could in fact have been taken as late as World War I. (Meaning? PHG has deliberately bended the copyright policy. More on that below.)

An analysis of PHG's contributions on Commons shows him to be an excellent contributor the majority of the time. It also highlights his willingness to bend copyright policy when it suits. With respect for PHG, I am unsure such an individual is one we should be lifting enwiki restrictions from without very sound assurances that the behaviour he has practised, and is practising, on another project whilst restricted here would not continue should the en:wiki restrictions be lifted.

AGK 21:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Deacon of Pndapetzim

Had to spend some time going over this. Uninvolved (as far as I can remember), but seriously please do not unleash this guy onto medieval history articles again. The bad user/good user ratio is already demoralizingly appalling. And poor Elonka! She put so much effort into sorting this guy and she now has to go through it again because this guy (what a surprise!) thinks he has grounds for appeal. Seriously, everyone is a volunteer here, and she, in addition to taking all the libel, can't be expected to go through this every few months just because she was among the first and most vigilant people to deal with this user! That we still have a ridiculous article/SYTH-fest at Franco-Mongol alliance shows me that more work to undo this guy's destructive impact on our respectability is a bigger priority than wasting everyone's time judging if the decision reached a few months back was the right one. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


Statement by Sponsianus

I would just like to say that I have co-operated with PHG on the Indo-Greek and related pages for years, and that our discussions has always been highly matter of fact and unprestigious. PHG usually accepted my contributions if they were based on reputable sources and frequently gave good advice. There was a major row about the Indo-Greek maps, and in this dispute PHG was the subject of much abuse, usually keeping a far more civil tone himself as can be seen on the Indo-Greek talk page. Several of the opponents were not read up on recent research; I fear I must suspect personal and/or nationalistic reasons for some of their disagreements. Sock-puppetting also appeared. I have less knowledge about the Franco-Mongol alliance dispute, but from what I have seen I support PHG's appeal. Sponsianus (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

  • Recuse.
    My opining above removes the neutrality requisite to clerking a matter.
    AGK 21:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that we have the required four votes to open a review case. Please see Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram or Waldorf education for how the case pages are set up for these situations. Alternatively, as far as I am concerned the clerk can just use the regular configuration of pages if that is easier. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll take care of it as soon as I look up how to do it--Tznkai (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Please see also the bottom of my talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Holding off until we come to some sort of consensus on how we'll do this - and whether or another clerk will be handling it.--Tznkai (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Accept for a review to determine whether sanctions/restrictions should be terminated, continued, or extended/expanded in light of PHG's editing since our original decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Please see note to clerk, above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Recuse YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 00:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Accept - editors would benefit from having this clarified. Many months have passed and yet it's still a source of contention. Let's revisit it and see what the updated evidence says. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Update - There's a need for serious review here. This isn't a simple "review of existing remedy". More evidence and rebuttal is likely, and the solution may be more nuanced than yes or no, or indeed may require complete re-evaluation of approach (if issues are found). Considerable concerns are being raised, of the same form as the old concerns (by both "sides"). These are important, for example the content is prolific in nature and the issues if any may turn out to be serious (copyright, sourcing, etc). If there still are persistent issues this would be a problem, and may need detailed examination (as all parties seem to agree). I'm wondering, do we actually want a full case on this to reconsider it? I have a feeling we might need to, on this one... FT2 (Talk | email) 17:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with FT2 regarding the scope of the review to be conducted. See comments above. FT2, if you have thoughts on how the pages for the review case should be structured (see my note to clerks above), please weigh in. Ditto everyone else, of course. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Accept to review the current arrangements to see if they need to be changed. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a pity that PHG falls into a trap so often seen with these requests, which is a desire to relitigate the original case rather than to comment on the effect of the restrictions now. A desire to go again over old ground is often a bad indication. That said, I think now would be a reasonable time to look again at the restrictions to see if they are still reasonable or should be amended. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Accept per Brad, FT2; echo Sam's comment. James F. (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: SlimVirgin-Lar (December 2008)

Original discussion

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


Statement by Thatcher

This is a request to clarify the status of Finding of Fact #5. Proposed finding #5, SlimVirgin's conduct received a final vote tally of 5 in favor, 3 opposed and one abstention. WIth 11 active arbitrators on the case, the abstention reduced the number of active arbitrators on that proposal to 10; however with 10 the required majority is still 6. The finding is recording as having passed 5-3 with one abstention.

This finding has been cited recently against SlimVirgin in another matter. I believe this was an honest mistake or confusion but the finding needs to be vacated or revoted.

Note: This matter was recently posted to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration but the discussion was sidetracked by ElinorD's objections to the case in general and the subsequent discussion. I respectfully ask that ElinorD and other interested editors to allow this clarification to stay focused on the single issue presented at this time. Thatcher 12:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by AGK

Speaking on something of an official note here (or wearing my Clerk hat, at least).

There has been a clear metric miscalculation on the finding in question. With the thinking being that particular aspect of the SlimVirgin-Lar decision was at no point assented to by the Committee (as per this tally), I have run with Brad's suggestion (below) and deleted the finding from the final decision.

I have engaged in some light publicity of this adjustment — in the vein that notifications of general case closures are made in — at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration. (I am willing to post notifications at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or at similar pages upon request.)

AGK 21:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • This discrepancy was recently brought to our attention by one of the Clerks, in addition to having been alluded to in the thread cited by Thatcher, and should have been acted on at that time. The finding in question, not having attained the required majority, was not adopted, and should be deleted from the final published decision in RfAr/SlimVirgin-Lar. It should, however, be noted that a primary reason the finding did not pass, as reflected on the proposed decision page, was because it was viewed as an unnecessary and cumulative "piling on" or overemphasis on a situation already adequately addressed in the earlier findings, not because it necessarily was factually inaccurate. Therefore, correction of this error does not necessarily undercut the subsequent action premised to some extent upon this finding (although I lack standing to opine with much authority upon the latter question as I did not vote in favor of that action). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I concur with Newyorkbrad on this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • This issue appears to have been resolved - the finding was not adopted. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to review User:Jack Merridew's ban (December 2008)

Original discussion

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

Jack Merridew has asked the Arbitration Committee to review and lift his ban. (arbcom clarification, User:Jack Merridew, SSP case, RFCU case, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive136#Community sanction or ban for Jack Merridew, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive142#Jack Merridew).

On Oct 24, 2008 Jack Merridew started a dialog with the the Arbitration Committee and some Wikipedia English administrators (name of email: thread Mentorship, take 2?) about returning to Wikipedia English with editing restrictions and a mentor. During the discussion, Merridew was counseled about the exceptions for his return, in particular the absolute requirement that he will stay completely away from White Cat.
On October 28, 2008, White Cat was notified by email that the Arbitration Committee was reviewing Jack Merridew's ban. Since then, White Cat has given his thoughts about the potential unblock in several talk page threads, ([38], [39], [40] and in an IRC chat (In the ArbCom list email thread, White Cat- Jack Merridew (Davenbelle) situation)


Question from Risker

I note Condition #8, in particular "Should Jack Merridew violate the restrictions imposed upon him in this decision, he may be blocked for one year by any uninvolved administrator" (emphasis mine). Am I correct in interpreting that any deviation from the remainder of the editing condition will result in a one-year block? Risker (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Note - refers to Condition #8 in Motion #1, as it was initially proposed by FloNight.

Comment for FT2: I note that you have changed the section I quoted above; could you please include that in your comment? Risker (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

I am concerned at the timing of the proposed return of Jack Merridew - with whom I have previously had some convivial interactions - given that White Cat is a candidate on the 2008 ArbCom elections. I would seek reassurance that the conditions of the return of Jack Merridew includes a constraint upon him not participating in the aforementioned Election in any capacity; his voting for and advocating for candidates other than White Cat possibly being construed as acting against that party. I would point out that if Jack Merridew were not permitted to regain their editing privileges then they would not be permitted to participate in the election, and that under the circumstances being prevented in doing so while editing under restrictions is not as prohibitive as might at first appear. I regard this as a necessary extension of the restriction that Jack Merridew should not interact with White Cat, as proposed by FloNight. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg

IMO, Jack Merridew has earned a "final" chance. It is not just the work he has done on other projects, but also the manner in which he has communicated with others about his prior behaviour. He has been open and honest, and a hard worker to boot. *fingers crossed*

It should be made clear that this is his final chance, and that he will not be enjoying the benefit of the doubt, so it is on his shoulders to ensure that there is no even the slightest appearance of relapse. It looks like FT2 is going to proposed something along these lines.

In regards to the Arbcom elections, raised by LessHeard vanU above, the discussion about this motion started prior to the elections, and I am pretty sure that it also predates any indication from White Cat that he was going to run. I think it is safe to say there is no possible chance that it was was a motivator in this case. It is a given that Jack Merridew would oppose White Cat if he could, and think it is sufficient "punishment" that he wont be able to that. Limiting him from participating entirely isnt something I would have even thought of, but now that you have raised it, it seems reasonable. It "cant hurt". As you say, if this motion doesnt pass, he wouldnt have been able to participate anyway, so he is no worse off if he is prohibited from participating in this years election. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by White Cat

I am of course less than thrilled at the thought that Davenbelle (aka Moby Dick aka Diyarbakir aka Jack Merridew) would return editing on this site. This isn't something I have any control on, I know that. I do not have to like it but I think I can live with it. All I want to do is not to deal with any more harassment. If only arbcom can pass measures and enact mechanisms to insure that...

I will however say this. Moreschi is not an uninvolved third party on this matter. I would recommend arbcom to pick a mediator that does not have a past quarrel with me. I'd be extremely uncomfortable in asking Moreschi for help. I really do not want to be put in a situation any more uncomfortable than it already is. PLEASE!

Also in my view Jack Merridew should at least have three different mediators. If one mediator is unavailable (leaves the project, gets ill, gets hit by space debris, does a head-on with a planet and anything else equally unlikely) others would be there. This would also be in the best interest of Jack Merridew too me thinks.

-- Cat chi? 06:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

To Lar,
What do you mean I clashed with "a long list of people"? Please stop treating as if I am the disruptive party. I am sick and tired of facing accusations any time I bring up an issue concerning Davenbelle. Give me a freaking break!
We aren't exactly in a shortage. There are plenty of editors and admins out there who have not alienated themselves from me. Unfortunately Moreschi is not such a person. I do not believe what I am requesting is unreasonable. I am not trying to win a wiki-enemy and I mean no disrespect to Moreschi. I just do not wish to see him in the helm of this very fragile issue.
-- Cat chi? 21:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Also victims do not need "parole officers". And in actual legal systems if the parole officer has a conflict of interest, he or she is of course recused. I'd have thought Moreschi would recuse himself from such a task... -- Cat chi? 21:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
To FloNight:
You were having connection problems and seems like I only got a partial post from you. We can discuss this in greater detail if you are online now.
-- Cat chi? 22:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
To arbcom:
Can the case be called Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew? Shorter the better. No real reason for this though.
-- Cat chi? 06:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Lar

I am in favor of this. I have seen this user in action on other wikis and I think he truly is committed to making a successful return here, and truly understands what will be required to do so. Further, as a steward, I've reviewed the unification of accounts other than Jack Merridew (which have all be explicitly directly disclosed to me although they are public record) and if there are any issues (there are some accounts that are in use by other users) I will do my best to assist in resolving them.

Finally, if the ArbCom desires that more than one mentor be appointed I am willing to so serve (this matter has come up in private communication already). However, I have confidence in Moreschi. He and I have already communicated and I have offered him whatever assistance he may choose to ask for that is in my power to give. ++Lar: t/c 07:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

To Pixelface: Wow. I think you might want to refactor your words just a bit. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
To Tznkai: I think your analogy is a bit off... neither victims nor perpetrators get a veto over who the parole officers are, and I'm not sure it's a good precedent to establish that anyone (other than ArbCom) gets a veto over who the mentors are. Input? Sure. And ArbCom should weigh that input carefully. But in this particular case, the list of people WhiteCat has clashed with over the years is rather long. Are all of them to be disqualified? Is everyone who Jack Merridew clashed with also to be similarly disqualified? ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
To Tznkai: (I feel like we're having a dialog, maybe we need to thrash this out somewhere else) First, we are none of us perfect, and that includes both JM and WC. So perhaps it would be generally better if neither party had a veto over who could mentor and who could not. I'm with you in wanting to trust ArbCom to be sanguine about this matter. However, perhaps more than one mentor is a better approach here? I'm starting to really like that way of doing things. As for disenfranchising completely, that does seem a bit punitive to me, doesn't it? Either he's returned or he hasn't. ++Lar: t/c 23:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Question to whoever: Where do things stand? I see the main motion has apparently passed and none of the others are close, correct? Thanks for clarification. ++Lar: t/c 21:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Casliber

I would also be happy to mediate in unbanned. I found Jack Merridew's behaviour infuriating at AfD, and I guess my views are more aligned with White Cat and other inclusionists. However, like some other deletionists, Jack has some very valid points on systemic bias and addressing it, is good with layout and has been contributing constructively on much-needed article content elsewhere. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Pixelface, KWW, White cat, A Nobody - all these editors make valid points, and if the consensus were to remain banned I would not oppose. I am merely pointing out that if Jack Merridew were unbanned, I would be happy to mentor as I have seen some good work. I concede that it is a long period of problematic behaviour, and like a Nobody, found the AfD participation troublesome and unhelpful. I think if White cat feels uncomfortable with Moreschi then a different person needs to be selected. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Pixelface

Oh dear God no. You have got to be fucking kidding me. Wow. What a horribly bad idea. I can't believe any arbitrator is even considering this. Y'know, why don't you just really shit on White Cat *and* WP:HARASSMENT and make Jack Merridew an arbitrator while you're at it? Jack Merridew would be a great arbitrator — he's obviously good at manipulating you clowns. How can you people be so fucking stupid? Y'know, that may be too salty. Can I get a mentor pretty please? This isn't just about the constant stalking. This isn't just about the constant socking. This isn't just about the constant lying about the socking.

Please, come to your senses and look at this graph, this thread on Jimbo's talk page, this AN thread, this AN thread and also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop (I know it may be the first time for some of you). Search for "Jack Merridew" on the E&C2 workshop page and think about what you'd be doing. Pay special attention to this thread and keep in mind Jack Merridew's later admission of sockpuppetry. After I made a motion to add Jack Merridew as an involved party of E&C2, he responded with insults and by following me to AFDs. This isn't just about harassment of White Cat (although that really should be enough, don't you think?) This isn't just about the constant lying. If you unblock David aka D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5 aka Senang Hati aka Moby Dick aka Diyarbakir aka Davenbelle aka Note to Cool Cat aka Thomas Jerome Newton aka Jack Merridew, you might as well open E&C3 now (and proceed to sit on your thumbs for 3 months). Now let me tell you a story.

Once upon a time, a woman named Allison Sudradjat, AusAID's Minister Counsellor in Indonesia, who administered aid from Australia to Indonesia, boarded Garuda Indonesia Flight 200 in Jakarta and when it went to land on March 7, 2007 in Yogyakarta Indonesia at Adisucipto International Airport, it overran the end of the runway and crashed and burst into flames and she died, along with 20 other people. Two months after the crash, David (aka D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5 aka Senang Hati aka Moby Dick aka Diyarbakir aka Davenbelle aka Note to Cool Cat aka Thomas Jerome Newton aka Jack Merridew) from Bali (or a kampong near Bali), who started editing October 31 2004, who has in the past repaired the roof on the Senang Hati Foundation, and was perhaps momentarily bored of stalking White Cat at the time, wrote an article about her and it was deleted. In anger, instead of improving the article, he then sought to delete every article related to "pop culture" he could find (although I don't really see how that fits with David's problem with "Jimmy's other pocket"). Congratulations David! Now when anyone wants to learn about D&D, Wikia thanks you for the page views! For his all-around assholery, David received death threats and impersonators. I guess harassment begets harassment.

At one point, after he had gotten his lulz, Jack Merridew admitted to being Davenbelle and he was blocked indefinitely. In March 2008, David asked that the article about Allison Sudradjat be placed in his userspace and David finally decided to improve it. Casliber placed it in the mainspace and Pegasus deleted it under G5. Casliber took it to DRV in April 2008 and the article was re-created. Am I warm so far David? Or are you full under a bridge somewhere? After the Senang Hati Foundation and Allison Sudradjat articles were improved, perhaps David is less bitter now and trusts in the editing process on Wikipedia. However, why should anyone trust David after the unmitigated bullshit he has pulled? You do not trust people who have shown themselves to be untrustworthy over and over and over again. Fool Arbcom once, twice, three times...how many times does it take? Seriously? David sure isn't making the Senang Hati Foundation look any better. If I ever get in a plane crash in Indonesia and end up paralyzed, I'll be sure to go to the Senang Hati Foundation for my free wheelchair and complimentary stalker.

What are the risks of unblocking Jack Merridew? What are the benefits? Are there any? How could you even consider an unblock without a topic ban in fiction? If Jack Merridew is unblocked, that is a clear message by the arbitration committee that WP:HARASSMENT means fuck all, that users can do anything they want and always be forgiven, and that ArbCom is a joke — just in time for the 2008 elections. Yeah, unblock Jack Merridew right before the elections where White Cat is running. White Cat's the pig! Run White Cat run! --Pixelface (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

I did some minor clerking on this case before hand, but I have recused myself from further such edits, this is a personal opinion

I am not familiar with the gory details of this case but I take the following two things as fact:

  1. Jack Merridew has harassed White cat
  2. White cat has in good faith stated he would not be able to turn to Moreschi for help concerning this matter.

That there has been harassment is a serious problem, and needs to be dealt with the utmost of caution. That we see the ability of any editor to reform is noble, enacting this belief with caution would be most wise. Using a mentor-cum-watch dog is sensible, but it is certainly not sensible to use a mentor that the victim of harassment doesn't trust. This would be roughly equivlent to having a stalker's parole officer be the ex-spouse of the stalkee. I make no comment here on Moreschi's actual ability or lack thereof, I am simply pointing out without White cat trusting Moreschi, this rehabilitation is too dangerous and prone to spectacular failure. Unless the mentoring position is given to (a) individual(s) White cat can trust, these motions should not pass.--Tznkai (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

To Lar: In this case White cat is a wronged party and Jack Merridew has already breached community standards. He is essentially our equivalent of a felon, or at least an undesirable, so his concerns on who his mentor is are of very little weight compared to White cat. Do either of them get a veto? No. Is it a good idea to go against the victim's wishes? Also no. If we accept the possibility that harassment could reoccur, we accept that we need to actively monitor for it. The primary way to detect harassment is by the complaints of the victim, (even when every on wiki communication is logged, there is off wiki communication and information overload to worry about) and if White cat won't report, we've cut out the principle source of information.--Tznkai (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
And as far as precedent goes, I think its a good precedent to show that Arbcom is attentive to all the nuances of a situation.--Tznkai (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
FloNight, since there is a pending clarification on Everyking below that states flatly that Arbcom election voting and question are exceptions to the "No comments on" restriction, it would probably be a good idea to explicitly restrict Jack Merridew from voting or posing questions on White Cat's current and/or future elections.
On a related note, it may be worthwhile to deny Jack Merridew suffrage in this election entirely. The timing of this coming up shortly before an election unfortunate and the denial of suffrage is harsh, but I remind everyone that Jack Merridew was removed from the community for harassing another user and there are few more serious breaches of community standards. It is also clear that not all of the community is willing to forgive and forget just yet. Jack Merridew quite frankly, has to earn community trust again, something that will be considerably easier for all involved after the elections are over.--Tznkai (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
To Lar: (I think the dialogue is productive for the consumption of the public and the Arbitration Committee, but I'll be happy to also do it else where if you wish) Disenfranchising someone is very serious, and given the opportunity to decide it, I'm not sure if I would. I do think however, that the kind of harassment we're talking about here makes it an option worth considering. Suffrage is at the most basic level a way of saying someone is a fully fledged community member and conversely, being disenfranchised is a way for the community to set certain users apart. It is an ugly mark to bear, but Jack Merridew has earned it. Whether or not it is necessary, proper, or proportionate, I do not know, I will defer to those more familiar with the case than I.
As to the mentor issue, multiple mentors is of course the way to go, and if it is genuinely hard to find say, three upstanding community members able and willing to ride herd over Jack Merridew that White cat also is comfortable with, then sure, the Arbitration Committee should simply press forward. I do not however believe that there are significant practical problems of finding mentors who are acceptable.
What is left is the philosophical issue of whether or not Arbitration should allow any user to veto a mentoring structure, in substance or appearance. While the Arbitration Committee must make the best decision free of the whims of any one editor, it should likewise not make decisions simply to contradict the whims of any one editor, it would not only be counterproductive, but it would be petty as well.
We must finally remember that this "veto" from White cat is not a whim, demand, or opinion, but an involved editor showing us a genuine roadblock. Imagine for a moment that an outside editor, you or me, had pointed out that white cat had conflicts with Moreschi in the past, and that White cat would be unable to communicate effectively if he were harassed. The implications of the point raised are the same, and have practical consequences. Merely because it was White cat who brought it up doesnot make it any more or less true, and it is the point itself, not who brought it up, that should determine the course of action. In summary, if at all possible, lets find some more mentors that White cat is likely to trust and get this show on the road.--Tznkai (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by A Nobody

I support Jack Merridew being mentored by Casliber, but I also strongly recommend a ban from AfDs (way too much dishonest use of WP:JNN style of non-arguments) and instead advise that he focus on constructive article development for which I would be willing to colloborate. Just as I have avoided commenting in AfDs for some time now, anyone else should have no problem taking a step back as well as that was clearly one of Jack's conflict areas and for his own good, he would be wise to avoid areas where he is likely to run into conflicts. Actually, it's probably best that the more pollarizing and controversial figures step back from commenting in those discussions and focus on article development anyway as there are plenty of other non-controversial editors who can comment one way or the other. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Moreschi

Clearly arbcom have not been reading their mail. No interaction or public commenting on White Cat was already explicitly agreed upon in the discussions which have been cced to arbcom-l. By all means vote on it formally, but we had already thought of this one. Otherwise, I will simply limit myself to pointing out that JM is a reasonable fellow, he can be kept away from White Cat, and that I am fully committed to doing so for his own benefit and for that of the encyclopedia. Yours, Moreschi (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kww

This is one of the only things where I wind up aligning with Pixelface and White Cat. Jack maintained a pattern of deceptive behaviour that lasted for years. It wasn't just passive deception, either: he actively lied to all of us. We always need good editors, but there is no need to welcome back the chronically deceitful.—Kww(talk) 03:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Fram

He is doing good work on other Wikimedia projects? Good, he can continue to do so. But he has used all chances he deserved here, and more. I don't understand the bending over backwards to give some people an umpteenth chance. What message are we supposed to be giving here? Keep him banned from en.wikipedia ad infinitum, and don't waste anymore time on chronic trouble makers. Fram (talk) 09:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jack Merridew

Statement re Jack Merridew ban review motion

It is fully my intent to comply with the terms proposed. Since I was en:blocked, I have discussed the situation with a variety of experienced editors. I have made a great many much appreciated edits to projects other than en:wp; I have more edits elsewhere, than here. I have found the experience on the wider gamut of projects enlightening. I expect to keep a significant focus on the other projects.

I have no issue with FT2's amendments; it has been understood all through these discussions that further interaction is the issue here. I will leave it to others. As to the AC elections, no, my appeal is not motivated by any particular candidacy; as John says, it predates. I have no intention of making the given oppose; it would only serve to inflame. I do object to a complete disfranchisement. I've seen the current discussion re Everyking and what seems a similar situation and I do not feel that my otherwise participating in the process is inappropriate. If such an editing restriction is passed, I will abide by it. It would, however, be a poor precedent to set.

Please noted that;

remains in effect; this has been discussed in emails and should be a part of this.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

addendum;

re: Moreschi's role:

The term 'mediator' has leaked into the discussion; Moreschi's role is as a mentor to (and monitor of) me, not as a mediator between White Cat and myself. My discussions with Moreschi about this whole situation go back to March. I don't really know just what the dynamic between Moreschi and White Cat is; sure, I have seen bits of disagreement, but nothing much, really. I see the concern about this as moot; if White Cat has a concern down the road, there are 1,600+ admins he could consult, and there's the AC itself. FWIW, when he was placed under mentorship, his mentors included Tony Sidaway who was not a disinterested party.

re: FloNight's and FT2's discussion:

This seems to me to be an internal issue about the AC's role spilling out. It is certainly true that a large volume of counsel resides in my inbox; I've read things carefully and believe that I've gotten the appropriate take-away.

re Pixelface:

Oh, dear, good show. Thank you for reminding me that Elizabeth O’Neill warrants an article, too.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Browsing Wikipedia (still on holiday) I happened to spot this case. I've some history here, having witnessed the harassment of White Cat by Jack Merridew under his various socks for what amounts to White Cat's entire history of editing Wikipedia.

A last chance is deserved by someone who has come clean about matters he previously concealed, denied or equivocated about, and who wishes to do good work. But please, let it be the last chance. Merridew's persistent and malicious harassment of White Cat for more than three years shows that he has an obsessive streak, and White Cat was for too long almost alone in bearing the weight of this obsession. Let Wikipedia be clear: the slightest sign of a return to past form must be the end of Merridew's career. --TS 01:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


Statement by Web Warlock

I find this action to be unfathomable and highly questionable. User:JackMerridew entered into a campaign of fraud and deception for the purposes of pushing his own point of view on various articles and to engaged in sockpuppetry of the highest order. He also, and far more disagreeable, engaged in a campaign to stalk and harass another editor. This is beyond the call of merely pushing a POV this is harassment. Had User:JackNerridew and User:WhiteCat been employees at the same company he would have been dismissed without a moment’s notice. Everyone deserves a second chance, JackMerridew however has demonstrated that he has used all of those chances. I urge this group to keep the ban on User:JackMerridew. Web Warlock (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

  • Minor formatting changes made to text of motion, would arbiter please review to ensure no meaning was accidentally lost, changed, or added.--Tznkai (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Recuse from further clerking, will be adding comment as editor.--Tznkai (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Even if the motion get enough supports to pass, please do not close the motion and make it actionable until you hear from an arbitrator that more mentors have been selected. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • After reading the suggestion for handling the case, I'm proposing a motion here (Clarifications and other requests section of the RFArb main page), and then announcing the proposed motion on AN. Since the precipitate for the last ban was socking in violation of an ArbCom sanction, ArbCom is the venue for a ban review. But in this instance, White Cat and the rest of the Community should have the opportunity to give the Committee feedback before the close of the Committee's vote. There is no need for privacy in this case and maximum transparency will serve the best interest of the Community in this situation.
  • The editing restricts were written based on the comments of the above administrators and have been previewed by ArbCom. The main purpose of the mentorship is monitoring Jack Merridew's account for any editing that will bring Merridew into contact with White Cat. No topic restrictions are spelled out in the restrictions but potential topics for problem editing have been identified and will be monitored. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    • White Cat, I showed you the proposed motion before I posted it so that you could make suggestions. I wish that you would have let me know about your strong view about Moreschi during our chat so we could have addressed then. Adding several more mentors will be a good approach since it is something that was going to happen in an informal manner, anyway. As stated by others, this request for a ban review pre-dates White Cat's announced candidacy so I don't see that as a particular issue in this situation. Since Merridew can't make comment about White Cat, then voting would be out of the question. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


  • This is a banned user appeal where the Arbitration Committee are acting as route of last appeal. "JM" has a long and serious history of harassment, leading to a ban. The question is, can he decide to avoid White Cat now, and can conditions be crafted that ensure he is non-disruptive if given the chance. Those are fair questions; if the disruption has a fair chance of ending, then fine. If it were to be trialled and it were found that he cannot or would not, then the ban would (and should) be reinstated. Because harassment can be as simple as subtle digs, appearing on the same pages, and so on, the only condition that makes sense is complete avoidance of anything that might even slightly give that appearance - and the responsibility for ensuring that, to be JM's alone.

    Users are banned (by the community or Arbcom) usually for serious and persistent behavior issues. When a user has a long term ban (say 3-6 months or more), and behaves during it, then in most cases they may eventually be trialled back as part of the community. This is not a green light for disruption. Relapse risk must be considered, as must the higher barrier for continued trust in their reformation if there were evidence of relapse. Unbans in these conditions should contain some form of strong probation/mentoring if there is any risk of relapse, and a clear understanding that if the behavior resumes, then the ban may very easily be reinstated. This helps them (boundaries), their victims or users the conduct impacts on (deterrent), and the community/project (avoids issues of huge legalisms if they do begin to game or relapse). In brief, a user who is banned, is given good faith trust that they will behave from now on, but is also "on ice" for a long time after, may be more at risk of resumption, and must make sure that the old behaviors are history, as the "unban" hopes that they are. If they do not, then they must expect a reblock/reban may have a much lower "bar" (and unblocking a higher "bar") than it would for a fresh user without such history.

    Having discussed this internally, I am content to give JM a try at unban. However I also feel the unban conditions are grossly inadequate and do not protect White Cat from harassment, the community from resumption, or make it direct or simple enough that a relapse will mean the ban resumes. I therefore propose a further motion 2 which is in addition to motion 1, to remedy these. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Motion to lift User:Jack Merridew's indefinite block and editing restrictions.

1) After reviewing User:Jack Merridew's ban at his request, the Arbitration Committee agrees to unblock his account with the following conditions:

  • 1. User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis and unifies that account. (already done)
  • 2. User:Jack Merridew discloses all prior socks. (already done).
  • 3. User:Jack Merridew agrees to not edit using open proxies.
  • 4. User:Jack Merridew agrees to completely avoid White Cat on Wikipedia English pages. No editing the same pages, no comments about White Cat by name or innuendo. No harassment of White Cat in other venues. This restriction will be interpreted in the broadest way with no allowance for any attempt to skirt the restriction in any manner.
  • 5. User:Jack Merridew agrees to avoid all disruptive editing.
  • 6. User:Jack Merridew agrees to a one year mentorship by Moreschi who will closely monitor for any contact with White Cat.
  • 7. It is specifically noted that this is not a "clear your name" unblock, but rather is done on the recommendation of Wikipedia English administrators that are knowledgeable about Jack Merridew's past disruptive editing and now support his return based on his good editing record on other Foundation wikis where White Cat and Jack Merridew both have accounts.
  • 8. Should Jack Merridew violate the restrictions imposed upon him in this decision, he may be blocked for one year by any uninvolved administrator, with any blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Log of blocks and bans
There are 12 active Arbitrators with respect to this motion, so a majority is 7 (assuming no abstentions).

Support:

  1. After reviewing the comments of all involved users, I support lifting the ban with these strict editing restrictions. It is my sincere hope that Jack Merridew will honor his promise to stay away from White Cat and over time White Cat will be able to move past the his current understandable suspicions and worries be able to edit with less stress than he's had during the past few years. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. If and only if 2 and (probably) 3 both pass. Otherwise strong oppose. We should only unban serious past harassment risks if administrator concerns about a relapse or breach of unban conditions will be taken very seriously. We should paint in the clearest black and white what the returning user must (not) do, to reduce the risk of ambiguity, gaming, or fault-shifting. If Jack Merridew is truly sincere, then these will present no problem to him and he will understand why they are required. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support. --Deskana (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support. This is a difficult issue but I find myself on balance agreeing with John Vandenberg that Jack Merridew has done enough to warrant a final chance. The conditions imposed here are among the most onerous the committee has ever imposed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  5. bainer (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  6. I find this to be an extremely difficult call. I accept the assurances of those, including my fellow arbitrators, who report that Jack Merridew has done good work on other projects. I have also carefully reviewed the e-mails that this user has sent to the committee containing seemingly sincere assurances of good conduct going forward. However, it cannot be denied that the conduct in which Jack Merridew engaged was vicious and egregious. The record reflects that this user persisted in intentionally seeking to ruin the Wikipedia experience of a chosen victim over a period of years, for no particular reason other than that this fellow-user seemed easy to get a rise out of, plus had different views from JM on some policy/deletion issues. To this end, Jack Merridew engaged in a persistent and varied pattern of misconduct, including but not limited to incivility, trolling, "wikihounding" (f/k/a wikistalking), serial sockpuppetry, and making intentionally false statements to the Arbitration Committee. Not only did White Cat have to expend considerable time over the years in dealing with the mess and compiling evidence, but many administrators and arbitrators did as well; and White Cat's relations with other editors were damaged as they came to Jack Merridew's defense and accused White Cat of "paranoia" and the like for making allegations that turned out to be entirely justified and true. To his credit, Jack Merridew eventually, if most belatedly, confessed to his misconduct and stepped away from Wikipedia. As noted, his work elsewhere has earned him a final chance to return. We can accept nothing less than the complete avoidance of any conduct that could reasonably be perceived as harassment of White Cat or any other user, now and permanently. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  7. Seven restrictions plus one dealing with any possible violation of the aformentioned ones are sufficient to make sure that JM (aka Davenbelle) has no single chance to get back to old tactics. -- fayssal - wiki up® 20:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) In the event that Jack Merridew is blocked by any administrator for a matter relating to breach of the above terms, any unblock is only to be decided by consent of this Committee, following any communal discussion in the usual place.

Support:

  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. I think that the community is perfectly capable of handling the unblock requests of someone that is blocked for harassment. But at the same time, it's perfectly acceptable for us to monitor this. --Deskana (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support; I hope this procedure never happens. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support. -- fayssal - wiki up® 20:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. First, I don't think that special enforcement is needed in this situation. It is significant to note that no admin unblocked the Jack Merridew account despite it not having a special enforcement clause as proposed. If you look through the block log, everyday admin block accounts for harassment and personal attacks. Admins are sensitive to these issues and deal with them regularly. The indefinite block on the Jack Merridew account was done during a Community discussion so there was some ambiguity about how this unblock request should be handled. During a discussion about how to handle this unblock request several ideas were suggested with all of them being reasonable ways to address it. I decided to make it a formal ArbCom ban review instead of having one of the involved admins open an unblock discussion at AN. I did this because I think that AE is a better venue for handling any question about enforcing the sanction or re-writing them if needed.

    Second, the Committee does not have a good track record for managing our cases load in a prompt manner. Until we address this problem, I'm not in favor of excluding alternative methods of handling a situation unless there is an absolute reason for doing it (such as an privacy issue or extraordinarily sensitive issues such as pedophilia related account blocks.)

    Third, alternative methods of dealing with unblock requests need to be addressed in a more systematic way with the Community. An ban review committee or another alternative way to comprehensively address the growing backlog of requests. Each of these cases deserve to have the attention of experienced impartial users who can craft editing restrictions that will be enforced. This is not something that the Committee should be doing on a regular basis because it is too time consuming.

    Fourth, if an individual administrator is using their tools outside of Community norms then it needs to be addressed with them in a direct way. If there is wide spread disagreement in the general Community and among admins about whether a block is appropriate, heavy handed enforcement is usually not the best approach for the Committee to use since the default should be less enforcement not more.

    Fifth, more comprehensive discussions about how to handle the different types of harassment, wikihounding, and bullying need to occur in appropriate venues on site.

    Last, the Committee needs to guard against putting in place provisions that might lead to more insular thinking. We need to make sure that our policies and practices do not make it more difficult for the Community to reverse a poorly written decision. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

    Whether or not it may have been needed in past reviews of this user,
    1. I do not know whether it will be needed in future ones. There are strong communal concerns (see above), and when it comes to a serious harassment case I want the ability to put a foot on the brake with no risk of gaming, "unblock pile-on" or the like, if there were a potential problem, until we have reviewed the incident.
    2. I emphatically don't accept "we're too busy" as an excuse for not giving the project an a harassed user the appropriate level of protection - if that is so then we'll just have to make time when it comes up, as we did for this appeal.
    3. If processes change then good; this is not a "usual case", it is a serious harassment case, and needs unusual safeguards in place.
    4. (4 onwards) The community has had consensus on poor unblocks before. Not one thing you've said explains how you will prevent gaming, politicizing or pile-ons of an unwise unblock if some admins decide to do this.
    To underline the issue, this is a user with a past history of serious harassment. We are trialling his reintroduction to the community. If he acts well (as we hope) then thsi is academic. If not, then this is very far from academic indeed, given the activity surrounding some other unblock AE cases. In brief - I disagree completely with your line of thinking. Rosy glasses and "it'll all work out anyway" are no substitute for being a bit blunt at times and allowing for the prevention of plausible unban problems. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    You might be making some false assumptions about how the situation will play out. There is a danger that the Community left to there own devises would have decided to keep him blocked but the Committee might vote to reverse the block. After we unblock, there may be bad will between the Committee and users that feel that their concerns were not addressed. This just as likely to happen as the reverse. This error would not happen if the Community is permitted to do the initial review. I strongly prefer to keep to our ordinary role of assisting in settling disputes when the Community can not decide and some mechanism must be used to settle the situation. It is not our place to substitute our opinion for the Community's. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. I largely agree with Flo. Further, as I have elsewhere indicated, if there is a culture problem in relation to unblocking, then that ought to be dealt with directly; trying to evade it indirectly by some preemptive flanking manoeuvre is unlikely to be productive. --bainer (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. As FloNight, I don't think special cases are needed here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


Abstain:

  1. I have no strong view one way or the other on this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

3) Condition 4 is amended to add the following explicit clarifications:

"User:Jack Merridew agrees to completely avoid White Cat on Wikipedia English pages. No editing the same pages, no comments about White Cat by name or innuendo. No harassment of White Cat in other venues. This restriction will be interpreted in the broadest way with no allowance for any attempt to skirt the restriction in any manner."

"In particular, if White Cat is editing a page, Jack Merridew is responsible for not editing that page, its closely related pages, or commencing editing on closely related topics elsewhere. If it is a well known page such as ANI, and both have genuinely valid reasons for editing it, Jack Merridew is responsible for ensuring he edits it only on a matter different from, and with timing or manner that has no connection to, any of White Cat's posts there."

Support:

  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. Deskana (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. As discussed on the mailing list, the editor has been counseled about his editing restrictions in an much more extensive manner than this extra wording adds. In general extra wording on our cases leads to more confusion and adds to the potential for wiki-lawyering. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    Again, the point slips. A concern is expressed about conditions, your response is we don't need to set conditions because the editor has been "counselled". This (off-wiki) "counselling" carries minimal weight, and be far more open to disputing or "disagreeing about what lines were drawn", than a plain and direct statement of clarification, if there were a problem. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    The comments by people looking at the editing restrictions prior to my posting them did not suggest that more details were needed. You were the only person out of 20+ people reading them that suggested and supported this change in wording. Traditionally Wikipedia has used less details in policy and sanctions because real life experience shows trying to nails down details with wordy passages causes more problems than it prevents. This point was made to you by another arbitrator to you during ArbCom's discussion of the proposal. So that was the reason that I did not change the wording that you suggested and instead suggested that you offer it as an alternative if you still thought it was needed. The role of the mentor(s) is to counsel the editor. There has been a large amount of discussion with Merridew in anticipation of this request. Past and ongoing counseling by a mentor is a necessary part of this situation. I have confidence that the mentor(s) will set good guidelines for him. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. Per vote on #2 above, per Flo's comments, and per my comments elsewhere. The present wording already indicates that the restriction is to be read as broadly as possible, and that is sufficient. --bainer (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. Unnecessary. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Abstain:

  1. Arguably redundant, arguably harmless. I have made my points to Jack Merridew above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. Important but it is too circumstantial. -- fayssal - wiki up® 20:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: Bluemarine (December 2008)

Original discussion

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

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

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

Statement by Durova

Bluemarine was banned for one year by the Arbitration Committee as a result of the case. Requesting that the Committee consider a very limited return to editing for the sole purpose of improving access to Wikipedia articles for people with disabilities.

Bluemarine (Matt Sanchez) is an editor in good standing at Wikimedia Commons and has been contributing useful material. Of particular interest is his voice recording work such as Image:Weimar.ogg - a reading of part of the Weimar Republic article. Recordings such as this one make Wikipedia more available to people who have vision impairments. Mr. Sanchez has an excellent voice and the site could use more contributions of this sort.

Given his history, this is not something to consider lightly. So I propose a very limited unblock for handicapped access purposes only, with myself as his mentor. Mr. Sanchez would be permitted to place encyclopedic audio files at articles unrelated to his previous conflicts. He may format audio file templates and caption those audio files and may edit his own user space. That is all. LGBT issues, broadly defined, would be off limits.

During the early part of Mr. Sanchez's siteban he did sock and was aggressive toward other editors he had been in conflict with. So it's understandable if they have concerns or even outright opposition to this proposal. I have instructed him to refrain from responding if any conflict resumes. "Make it my problem," I told him. He agreed. When I found out he was socking earlier this year and asked him to stop, he pledged to. There has been no problem in that regard since April 1. So with a bit less than four months remaining on the clock for his ArbCom ban, I think this is a reasonable proposal. Hoping others agree. DurovaCharge! 06:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

At the suggestion of an editor I'll make this clear: yes, Bluemarine would remain prohibited from his own biography article. DurovaCharge! 22:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
To AniMate, preventing a resumption of old problems is a very high priority. The problems occurred primarily at one article and over one topic. Bluemarine will remain under a very tight restriction--unable to go to that article or anything like it, unable to edit in a normal sense, and unable to interact with other editors except at his own user talk. If you see loopholes in that, please articulate what they are so I may modify this proposal and close them. Respectfully, DurovaCharge! 00:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
To the clerks, Bluemarine's computer got hacked during the arbitration case. He's recovered his passwords and to the best of my knowledge there's been no further problem. DurovaCharge! 23:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Email control and identity confirmed. DurovaCharge! 03:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I think most requests to lift bans on condition of strict mentorship should be approved on a trial basis. At the first instance of trouble, the ban can be reinstated. I recommend that any uninvolved administrator be allowed to reinstate the ban if necessary, and the editor should be resticted from going anywhere near the areas where they formerly caused disruption. It is far better to have troubled users on the path to return under close supervision than have them sock puppeting or causing disruption through off site means. Jehochman2 (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by AniMate

I'm opposed to this motion. Bluemarine wasn't banned for his article contributions. He was banned for rampant incivilty and homophobic personal attacks. Looking through his contributions, there are a total of 9 edits to any talk pages at Wikimedia Commons, and those are from February. Unfortunately, Duova's request does nothing to address the concerns about his behavior.--AniMate 23:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Horologium

I am strongly opposed to this motion. I was the only editor who provided diffs at the RFA which documented the harassment of Sanchez (and it was a rather extensive collection), so it's fair to say that I'm not opposing due to personal animus. (Discounting the personal attacks by Sanchez after I started blocking his socks after the ban went into effect.) However, I feel that he is not suited to working collaboratively, which is essential here. His contributions to commons are by their nature non-collaborative; they improve the project but do not require interaction with other editors.

In addition to his attacks on LGBT editors and his harassment of other editors through sockpuppets, he has demonstrated poor judgement; after being unblocked to participate in the arbitration case, he made a beeline towards Waterboarding, which at the time was heading toward an an arbitration case of its own. This was after he had been explicitly instructed that the only pages he was to edit were his user pages and the arbitration case pages. He proved unable to comply with the guidelines then, and there is no indication that he will be able to do so now. I have had misgivings about dealing with the issue when the ban was set to expire; I really don't think we should move it forward. Horologium (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


Statement by Thatcher

Some of the particulars might be deduced by inspecting the checkuser and oversight logs. I recall that the Bluemarine account made a post that made a number of inflammatory and possibly libelous comments about Matt Sanchez. I ran a checkuser and found that those comments were posted from a very different IP than the one that had been previously used, and it was an IP that was linked to other harassment of Sanchez. I think the comments themselves were later oversighted. There were one or more individuals who hacked into Sanchez' email account (he talks about this on his blog) and he either used the same password for wikipedia or the hackers reset the password using the email feature. I have no opinion on allowing Sanchez to contribute as such, but great care and diligence should be taken to ensure that the real and only Matt Sanchez has control of the account. Thatcher 23:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

  • According to Bluemarine's user talk, the account has been compromised - has this issue been resolved?--Tznkai (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Waiting for user:Thatcher's update and/or clarification. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Given Thatcher's statement (which describes something that I don't recall from the case), it might be useful to know if the Commons Bluemarine represents an SUL account that is unified with the en.wp account. I forget how to check that. Avruch T 23:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
And indeed, according to this, the account is unified (so if the en.wp account is compromised, so are they all). Avruch T 23:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
On hold pending additional confirmation of Bluemarine's identity.--Tznkai (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The arrangement proposed by Durova seems acceptable; so long as he stays well away from the topics and users around which the previous conflict revolved, I see no reason why Bluemarine cannot be permitted to do some useful wiki-gnoming. Kirill (prof) 16:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Awaiting more comments, but at first review the idea seems reasonable. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, and offer a motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Motion

For this motion, there are 13 active Arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.

This committee's decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine and the preexisting community ban of Bluemarine (talk · contribs) are modified solely to the extent that Bluemarine is unblocked for the limited purpose of his making contributions related to increasing the accessibility of Wikipedia to users with handicapping conditions. This includes uploading encyclopedic audio files, formatting audio file templates, and captioning those audio files, as well as editing his userpage and talkpage, all under the mentorship of Durova (talk · contribs). Except as expressly provided in this motion, the ban on editing by Bluemarine remains in effect. If Bluemarine violates the terms of his limited unblock, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. If Bluemarine complies with these conditions for a period of 60 days, a request for further modification of his ban may be submitted.

Support:
  1. Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support with the additional comment that the case also found that Bluemarine had himself been harassed. Users are directed to read the below motion concerning Abtract; in the event that this motion passes, any resumption of harassment of Bluemarine will not be overlooked. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. And support Sam Blacketer's additional comment as well. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. Kirill (prof) 03:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  6. Would have wanted longer as evidence (90 not 60 days); but also, would be more open to earlier return to other non-contentious areas. Probably balances out in the end. Hence support. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  7. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to vacate Matthew Hoffman case (December 2008)

Original discussion

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

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

I've also notified a couple people who were tangentally involved, they can decide if they wish to add their names. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

A few months ago, Newyorkbrad encouraged me to open a new request related to the core of this case, but the wounds were too raw, and I was unable to set out my evidence calmly at that time, so delayed.

I ask that we reopen the matter now.

In this case, the arbcom, while I was suffering from severe depression, illness, and on the verge of nervous breakdown from the monetary situation at the time - I was literally faced with being homeless - opened a case with no prior dispute resolution - I had never had so much as an RfC on me - and chose me to be a test case. In the end, combined with the other events, this forced me to drop out of university. I left Wikipedia over it, and it was only the active, constant encouragement of User:Newyorkbrad, User:Durova and a few others that brought me back after several months.

A sitting arbitrator launched a campaign of harrassment throughout the case pages, unchecked by the other arbitrators. Here are some samples. This all took place over a single bad block, made two months before the Arbcom case was opened.

In the initial lead in to the case, I had offered to let Charles Matthews take over the block, in e-mail, because there was no way that I could review it competently at that point in time. He said that was "not good enough", so I put it up on ANI.

Charles Matthews specifically says at one point that my refusal to simply to defer to his judgement is why he opened this case and pushed so hard for my desysopping:

Bear in mind, please, my approach. I intended to get Vanished user to correct this mistake, voluntarily, in such a way as could appear a personal realisation that something had not been right, something had been excessive. In such a way that no review process had been needed. An admin had reconsidered an indef block, had read the log - "gosh, that was too strong - a month is enough - didn't mean to put it that way". Unblocks, leaves a Talk page note to MH. Vanished user and I would have had a little secret. End of story: MH might have left the site, but the matter would have ended in no fanfare. Why do we have a test case? For precisely this reason: the indef block was made in such a way as to obstruct this entirely humane and non-accusatory private review, discussed as between colleagues. Now, I would treat the next bad block just the same way: private email; talk page note, "did you have a mail from me?", no topic mentioned; another private mail, saying more clearly waht the issue is; another private mail asking for attention to the matter; a further mail saying you really ought to give this some attention, and, no, we should talk before you take this to any forum. Tell me, please, whether I'm not acting in the interests of everyone? As opposed to - I start an AN/I thread saying "Vanished user blocked badly here, and here's my case", and we get an adversarial discussion. Charles Matthews 21:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[N.B. I used to edit under my real name. I will be censoring it wherever it appears, and would ask that if anyone mentions it that it be immediately deleted]

As he did not get my consent immediately (though I did unblock in the end), Charles Matthews then launched a campaign of harassment against me, using the power of the Arbitration committee to harass without fear of rebuttal. A complete read through of the case pages would be necessary to see this in full, so I'll just give a couple typical comments by Charles.


His harassment was not devoted to me, he also referred to other editors in the same over-the top terms:

To quote MastCell's response to the last:


However, Charles did not act alone, he was aided and abbetted by the other arbitrators, who actively defended his right to harrass me:


Furthermore, the arbitrators were clearly not interested in anything I had to say in my defense: The case opened on 17:40, 2 December 2007 [45]. Within 13 hours of this, and before I had had the chance to provide a single word of evidence in my defense, Uninvited Company set out proposed decisions saying my statements were not borne out by the facts, to sanction Chaser for not having unblocked Matthew Hoffman, and to suggest I be desysopped.

The problems with this case have been pointed out for several months, but the Arbcom have refeused to deal with it, even to simply remove the harrassing comments by Charles Matthews.


A proposal I made during the case that I be desysopped immediately, in exchange for the case stopping, because of the health and RL problems being severely aggravated by having this case going on as well, was rejected by the Arbcoim in favour of dragging it out, coninuing the case, then opening an RFC. However, in July, the personal details I had volunteered in an attempt to get them to agree to my proposal were thrown back in my face:

"Since the full circumstances of the de-sysopped user were disclosed to the AC in confidence, the only appropriate way for this user to regain the tools is to convince the AC – the only group of users with full knowledge of the situation – that the circumstances have changed such that we have confidence in his ability to handle adminship without problems." - Morven, on WP:RFAR, 23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC), seconded by Kirill.

The arbcom have very consciously put me in a situation where only a full discussion of my private problems will prevent them from using them to say that the community is unable to comment on my situation, and that they should have the sole right to discuss what should be done with me. I do not trust myself to comment on their behaviour regarding that matter. Suffice to say that when I DID make a disclosure of some of the health problems of that time, e-mails I received from them afterwards criticised me for not being detailed enough, because I had still wished to maintain some sense of privacy.


Other users have agreed that there are problems with this case:

Likewise Raymond arrit et al, Filll, and numerous others, see the last third of the Proposed decision talk page.

I do not care about getting my adminship back, and I accept that the block was incorrect. However, for my own mental health, I want to put this behind me. Likewise, the campaign of harassment is a blight on the arbcom, and I ask the arbcom to vacate it, in full. As it stands, this case remaining is a statement that, if you upset an Arbitrator, the Arbcom reserves the right to open a "test case" against you with mno proevious dispute resolution, and allow the arbitrator to harass you off the site.

Furthermore, the Arbcom's self-regulation is clearly not working. A basic principle needs to be put in place that all Arbcom decisions can be appealed by the community.

For obvious reasons, I will be crossposting to WP:AN, as I'm afraid that for some reason, I don't really trust the arbcom to judge this case fairly.

Thank you,

User:Shoemaker's Holiday, a.k.a. Vanished user. 14:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If the committee would like, I can send them copies of some of the e-mails I got from Charles, or provide other evidence.

Response to Tznkai:

I am requesting the entire case be declared a miscarriage of justice, or, in less inflammatory language, a mistake. That doesn't mean the actions would necessarily be reversed, e.g. me getting sysop back, but the pages should be blanked or something, and the decisions declared no longer part of Arbcom case law. At this point, any other action validates the three-month harassment I went through as part of this case. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to Kirril: Just blank all the pages and leave a note saying it's been withdrawn. That, or something similar, would be sufficient. There's some very nasty stuff on there. I am sorry about this, and I had really hoped we could have dealt with this less publicly, but, well, now that it has been, it's hard to see any other path forwards... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to Sam

In this case, the findings of an arbcom-initiated RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vanished user were overturned to make a provisional desysop. I am not asking for adminship back and am fully aware that under the current RfA culture I probably never will. What I am asking is for the committee to accept that keeping up an attack piece, where a sitting arbitrator calls people "moral midgets", "dogs", and worse, and in which they harassed a user into a complete breakdown, and then in July unethically used confidential information about that user's health to continue their harassment is something they should not be doing.

What, precisely, in the current decision is so important that it must remain a year afterwards, and how does it justify the gross personal attacks, harassment, and other such things? The only thing that would change by this case being vacated, is that, if I triedd to run an RfA - which I would of course, have no chance of passing, the Arbcom, out of concern for my mental health, would not be able to villify and continue their harassment, by pretending to know anything about my current state of mental health, now that I am not facing being homeless and starving to death, because they knew what my mental health was like when both those things were true. I will urther add that the committee ignored all this information about my health during the case, but only gave any sign they had any knowledge of it at the point they used it to attack me.

The Arbcom has violated my privacy, been part of a harassment campaign against me, and, in July, insisted that I must make a public statement of my private medical details or they would continue holding power over me forever. Show some basic ethics, and stop trying to justify the harassment. The Arbcom has violated basic confidentiality by snidely revealing my health details in July in such a way to make things sound even worse, forcing me to reveal them. Please stop compounding your offenses and let's make a full break with the past, so we can all move on. The longer the Arbcom continues to defend their past bad actions, the more these actions begin to look less like mistakes, and more like intent. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

However, I am willing to have Newyorkbrad or FT2 as a mentor if that will help ease the committee's misgivings about making the basic ethical decision.


Second response to Sam

Very well, let's put it aside. You have evidently not looked at the remedies in the case, or it would have been clear that there is very, very little that would be overturned The only restriction that came out of that case was my desysop, (which would not change) and the right to regain the sysop after 6 months by appeal to the committee, with a probation to follow. FT2's commentary makes it clear that this was intended to protect me, in order to assure that I can get adminship back again.

The actual change in consequences is only to remove a proposal that was intended to make sure I could get Adminship back, which I do not want because it involves the Arbcom, and, after what has happened to me in regards to the Arbcom... Well, let's end this statement here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


Per Kirril's Motion

I am willing to be bound by an informal agreement that I will consult the committee, and, perhaps even seek a mentor in order to prepare myself, should I wish to seek adminship. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

To FT2

There had never been an RfC, and no real hint that I was doing anything wrong. Had either of those happened, I would probably have agreed to be much more careful. This is why Arbcom is meant to be the LAST resort in dispute resolution, not the first.

Let's review the finding of facts you mention


Finding of fact #3 justify his block of MatthewHoffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) include claims of harassment, POV pushing, extreme rudeness, and vandalism... None of these claims are borne out by a review of Hoffman's contributions.

He was clearly a POV-pusher. No reasonable person would deny that. The issue was that there was not sufficient time given to demonstrate a problematic pattern of POV pushing

As for the rest, as described here, I missed some context that mitigated his comments, but there was, at least, rudeness and attacks on others, justified by the context of a grand battle. I looked at diffs, and failed to consider the full context, and, in the typical manner this case was handled, all these mitigating factors were thrown out, even to the point of claiming he was not a POV pusher.

Finding of Fact #4

4) Vanished user's block of Matthew Hoffman for 72 hours, and the subsequent extension of the block to make it indefinite, were both outside blocking policy. The reasoning used to justify the blocks was fallacious, and Vanished user was involved in a content dispute with Hoffman. Further, the justification for the blocks in part is to encourage Hoffman to "cool down," which contravenes blocking policy.


This contains an utter untruth': I had not edited Irreducible complexity since January, as a search of the page history will show. In order to claim I was in a content dispute with him required claiming that having ever expressed any opinion o a subject, even before you became an admin, worked out to a content dispute. Secondly, only blocks with the sole purpose to make people cool down is outside policy. WP:BLOCK makes this very explicit:

Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption.

The emphasis is in the original. Indeed, the block policy also makes a clear distinction between content disputes and conflict of interest, and, while the latter is discouraged, is not actually forbidden.:

Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved.


FT2 asks for evidence that the decisions made about the Hoffman block were unreasonable. The committtee scraped the bottom of the barrel in order to justify a finding that I was in an active content dispute with Hoffman, mentioning a 7 month old edit to the page as proof. Carcharioth lays out a time scale here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Evidence#Content_dispute_at_Irreducible_complexity_and_Talk:Irreducible_complexity, I presume that, ignoring the actual dates, this is what the Arbcom used to justify its claims of a content dispute.

In short, the heart of the Arbcom decision with regard to the Hoffman matter - which FT2 declares unassailable - is based on a claimed direct violation of policy that never happened. This was pointed out at the time, [46], [47], etc. - FloNight even responded to a seperate point in the first post. The Arbcom pressed forwards with this anyway, enshrining a lie into a decision about me.

Finding of Fact 9.1 This finding implies there's a lot more that could be found, when, in fact, it is the result of an exhaustive review of every admin action I had made, thus making it almost certainly a complete list of what could possibly be found. Every single one of my blocks was reviewed on the evidence page of the Hoffman case, and Kirril can confirm whether he analysed all page protections, but given Finding of Fact #9 taking examples from my entire time as an admin, that's probably the case. If this is, in fact, all there was - and all evidence points to that - it is a much weaker finding than is implied by its similarities to similar findings of this type. Exhaustive or reasonably exhaustive searches should really be clearly labelled as such, anything else will be read as a representative set.

Furthermore, while at least some of the decisions were mistakes, there were mitigating factors:

  • Let's have a look at one of these in detail:

semi-protected Homeopathy a second time, citing IP "vandalism". A review of IP activity from Nov 27 - 30 2007 shows the edits related to POV differences and minor edits, not vandalism (WP:VAND refers)...

However, let's have a look at 25 November:

  • [48] - Vandalism by 202.168.239.186
  • [49] Vandalism by 75.153.9.52
  • [50] Vandalism by 90.203.64.154
  • [51] Further vandalism by 90.203.64.154
  • [52] Vandalism by 81.86.135.171

All of these are oobviously and unambiguously vandalism.

There might have been an arguement that the vandalism was not recent enough to justify semi-protection, however, the finding of fact says there was no vandalism, and claims that "The effect was to exclude IP editors with whom he disagreed as well as IP editors adding valid formatting edits." - implying that was my intent, when a review that covered just a two more days would have shown multi-IP vandalism and people having difficulty getting the reversion levels correct, reverting some of the vandalism, but not all. In a poorly-monitored subject, as Homeopathy was, this is problematic.


We could review the others. These had never appeared in evidence, and, by the time they appeared on the finding page, my health had crashed so far and, the arbcom having ignored all my previous comments, it did not seem that the arbcom cared what had to be said. Clearly, some more care would have prevented an appearance of conflict of interest, however, I was literally the only admin watching many of these pages, and most administrators had been scared off of all action on those pages, due to the poor editing environments there. Conflict of interest might have been an issue, but remember that the Arbcom case was the first procedural discussion of conflict of interest related to me, had any other dispute resolution occurred, I would have very likely accepted the problem and stopped doing the behaviours in question. The arbcom stated, upon taking the case, that the lack of any prior dispute resolution related to me would be taken into consideration.

I believe all the actions are defensible - not that they were correct, but that they were understandable mistakes, given the poor guidance I had, and that, as an inexperienced admin, I was working in one of the most contentious and poorest-monitored sections of Wikipedia. Had the arbcom cared to ask, I would have attempted to give my reasoning.

Here is what the community thought about these findings in the RfC that arbcom arranged to run, then ignored. Uninvited Company - I'm going to simplify this thread a bit, but I believe my summary is accurate - later claimed that the defense of me consisted solely of Scientific-point-of-view proponents and was thus ignored in favour of unnamed and unnumbered people who e-mailed the Arbcom in order to attack me. (Who clearly lacked a point of view?) [53]

On blanking I was told this would be done in February. This is far too little, far too late, and does not even deal with the errors of fact in the findings of fact mentioned above. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

On Flonight's proposal This looks fine. I might prefer it a brief statement saying the new statement replaced the previous content and decisions as well, but I think that I can bend a little bit to meet the Arbcom in the middle. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

On thinking about this, the "no longer active" is so ambiguous that it could be read as meaning anything. If we're going to make a decision on this, it probably needs to be one that won't simply cause more confusion. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by involved party Jehochman

This case was handled badly. I think it would be a very good to erase it completely, on grounds of procedural unfairness. As there is no request to restore adminship, I see that the only action required is for ArbCom to acknowledge this open secret. Jehochman Talk 14:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thebainer, the remedy sought is to have the case vacated. The person in question is not asking for their admin tools back. Given the severe incivility contained in that case (moral pygmy, meddling hypocrite), and the very poor treatment by the Committee of the person making the request (RFAR with no prior DR, insufficient time allowed to present defenses), I think the request is reasonable. By failing to correct these problems when the request comes before you, you all assume responsibility for these events, even if you were not on the Committee at the time they occurred. Jehochman Talk 14:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be best for the Committee to pass a motion stating: 1/ personal abuse directed at named parties is denounced, 2/ you recognize that handling of the case was poor, and the Committee will endeavor to do better. Blanking the case would also be a good idea, because it is a poor example. The result can stand because nobody is disputing the outcome. I think these actions, which might appear symbolic, would have the effect of stopping further reference to the case. I for one am very tired of hearing about it. Jehochman Talk 17:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Sam Blacketer, allowing the person in question to go back to RFA is hardly a concession. Their chances of passing RFA are dim to none. If they want tools back, the easiest way is via the Committee. Perhaps the case can be replaced with a statement that the user gave up the tools under a cloud and can get them back via RFA or appeal to the Committee. Jehochman Talk 14:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Will this goat rope never end? Jehochman Talk 14:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Important note to FT2

This case started with the posting of a remedy, before the accused had time to fully respond. Then it was suspended to run an RFC that generally opposed what the Committee was doing, selective enforcement or making one individual into an example to deter others. Then the Committee proceeded to disregard the opinions expressed in the RFC. A variety of us have asked for personal attacks within the case to be denounced or refactored. Thus far, these requests have been ignored. I am asking for two very specific things: 1/ the Committee blanks all the pages. 2/ the Committee makes a public statement recognizing the poor treatment of those involved. Public insults or abuse require a public retraction. Three wrongs don't make a right. The fact that the block was bad does not excuse Committee members to personally abuse those involved, nor does it excuse the Committee as a whole from culpability for conducting a kangaroo court. Cheers, Jehochman Talk 16:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved party Barberio

The manner in which this case was accepted is at best inappropriate opening of a case without allowing it to go through normal channels of having a block overturned. At worst, it appears to be an attempt to game the system by a sitting arbitration member pushing for a speedy resolution in his favour without giving a chance for rebuttal or defence.

I'm also unsettled by the use of 'secret reasons' for the desysop and block on re-admitance. Nor does the remedy sit well with the committee's actions towards more 'establishment figure' administrators who have had similar 'isolated bad decisions'.

In my eyes, the case wasn't taken on correctly, and not enough time was given for a defence. So this case was not legitimate, and none of it's findings or remedies should be active. It should be erased and apologised for.--Barberio (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to Sam Blacketer

With all due respect, the Arbitration process is a quasi-legal process, and claiming it isn't makes you appear to deny the reality of how your own committee works, much in the same way people claim there is no bureaucracy in Wikipedia. This is not unusual, quasi-legal processes exist in many associations, such as 'courts' that rule on FIA motor sports rule infractions. You need to recognise that this is a quasi-legal process, and act appropriately.

So since it is a quasi-legal process, you need to make sure your actions don't prejudice someone's case, you need to be as clear and open as you can be, and you need to apply suitable fairness.

You are explicitly not the fire-fighting team tasked with making quick emergency actions. You are supposed to act deliberatively, and urgent injunctions should be injunctions not rushed rulings. If you do not know the difference between an injunction and a ruling then you probably shouldn't be ruling on cases.

It is well within your power to make a temporary injunctions, and then investigate a case deliberatively. Failure to do so puts the legitimacy of the rulings at risk. --Barberio (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, it is my opinion that the current ArbCom claim they do not set precedent, while acting like the do. This appears to be a misunderstanding of what the word precedent means... If you have used the same 'principles' from one case, to another, to another, that is use of precedent. This is standard practice by the ArbCom.

Again, denying you use precedents when you clearly do signals a misunderstanding of your own role.

Combined with the growing attempts to create policy, and hang 'resolutions' such as Motion of clarification in the Tobias Conradi case up as binding rulings, is troubling. --Barberio (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Durova

This request was opened overnight without my knowledge, and I read it on my first cup of coffee. In the interests of avoiding another arbitration, I urge the Committee to consider this motion. In addition to other objections, I have reason to believe the case was initiated upon misleading representations. DurovaCharge! 15:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Where a user is being disruptive...the key issue is the disruption... Sam, Shoemaker's Holiday was an administrator in good standing until this out of process case opened against him. He is now an administrator in good standing at Wikimedia Commons. He has been instrumental to getting Wikipedia's featured sound program off the ground, is doing stellar work for the new 'song of the day' main page section on Wikisource, and is in good standing in all other WMF projects where he participates. There has never been any formal dispute resolution action against him, except related to this case. Shoemaker's Holiday has contributed over five dozen featured content items across multiple projects. What more must a man do to demonstrate he is not disruptive, once a bad arbitration case labels him as such?
The case was opened based upon a single month-old block which he had long since put up for noticeboard review, while he was offering to submit it for a second review. He answered all other relevant concerns to the satisfaction of community consensus, during the RFC for which the arbitration was suspended. Yet the arbitrators never substantially changed the proposed decision that had been posted in the first twelve hours of the case, before he had any chance to defend himself. Voting proceeded despite his requests for time to study for university final exams, and the time it took away hurt his grades. I fail to see what purpose is served by retaining this case, other than as a showcase example for critics of ArbCom to demonstrate the Committee's inability to correct its errors or rein in its members, when they level personal attacks. DurovaCharge! 01:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Kirill, I agree that Wikipedia arbitration does not observe the precedents of case law. So far as I know, no prior case has been vacated because there has never been so much cause to do so as here. DurovaCharge! 04:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Amending: Orangemarlin is a precedent, although an unusual one. DurovaCharge! 01:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
To FT2: a single block and a short noticeboard thread is scant grounds to suppose that a 'newbie biting' culture existed. What did exist--and was well documented in case evidence--was a series of offsite campaigns by people who held a particular POV to manipulate Wikipedia articles toward their POV. The degree of organization varied, but they occurred across muliple fora whose participants were persistent. This created a significant dilemma for Wikipedians who contributed to the topic, since that manipulative element had already learned to exploit AGF by abandoning accounts after a few days or weeks and returning under new guises. How does one address that exploitation while maintaining a friendly welcome for genuine good faith newcomers? Shoemaker's Holiday's approach did not work, but neither did the community do well (imo) when consensus directed that indef block reviews occur on high traffic noticeboards where a percentage of threads inevitably get buried in the shuffle, and more pertinent to this review--the Committee's attempted solution wasn't any better. There has been a shortage of sysop attention for the site's touchier topics. A wise administrator who reads this case would take one very pertinent lesson from it: close CSDs, enforce 3RR violations, work on the image permissions backlogs, and don't even comment upon anything controversial. Eventually those festering messes will come to RFAR where the Committee that failed to assume good faith of site culture can cope with the result. We still need better site processes and policies, but that falls outside the Committe's remit. See fundamental attribution error. DurovaCharge! 05:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Again to FT2: the case was opened under circumstances that would normally merit admin conduct RFC, and the only argument for bypassing prior DR was an allegation that a pernicious culture existed among the admin corps. That the person who initiated the request and made the allegation failed to substantiate it, and instead left a series of personal attacks on the site pages for two days before disappearing on an unannounced wikibreak, weighs heavily. Note too that the RFC for which the case was suspended established clear consensus support for the admin who was under scrutiny. He addressed the community's concerns to the community's satisfaction. The only remaining issue is his admin bit, and although the Committee's opinion is at odds with the community's he does not seek its return. The RFC was a proper RFC and will remain available for reference should that ever become necessary. The best portion of your concerns is sufficiently addressed there, and to the extent that this case is a valid one with reference to him (which I doubt) it is redundant with the RFC. DurovaCharge! 02:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Martinphi

I seriously question whether he stayed away from Wikipedia for several months. My memory is that he was logging into the admin IRC network under his real name immediately after his case closed. Yes, Shoemaker appeared 18 February 2008 [54], while the case was closed 13 February 2008 [55]. Yet, Shoemaker states above "I left Wikipedia over it, and it was only the active, constant encouragement of User:Newyorkbrad, User:Durova and a few others that brought me back after several months." Whether or not he believes this to be true, I cannot say. If he believes it, he's in no condition to be an admin again. If he doesn't, he's in no condition to be an admin again.

I have been the victim of his continued harassment since I took part in his ArbCom and RfC. If any action would give him back his admin tools, then I strenuously object, as he has continued to be an abusive editor since his desysopping. He already tried, by the regular means, to get his tools back at an RfA. He lost. He has lost the trust of the community. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 20:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My memory is also that while the ArbCom did not adhere to strict protocol in the case, it nevertheless went out of its way to ensure a full and just hearing of the case. It actually suspended the case pending an RfC. I have absolutely no doubt that if the ArbCom had seen anything in the RfC which indicated that Vanished user should keep his admin buttons, the ArbCom would have revised the case. Indeed, I am fully convinced that there were things which Vanished user could have done to keep his buttons: he could simply have said he was wrong and wouldn't do it again. He didn't. I told him how to keep his buttons, and he didn't do it. I believe the ArbCom was open to being convinced that their initial judgment was wrong, and the RfC failed to convince them. Certainly, Vanished user had many friends, who essentially said "he fights trolls, so excuse him." But that's not an excuse, and the ArbCom knew it. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 21:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved party Verbal

I have only recently become aware of this, and fully endorse Jehochman's view: it would be very good to erase it completely. This was bad procedure and sets bad precedent. It should never have happened. Verbal chat 21:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to Krill: I think blanked and vacated would be the best option here. Verbal chat 09:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to Kirill by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

A case was vacated earlier this year, though I'd prefer slightly different wording. If it is to be vacated, perhaps the Committee can vote on a motion that will replace (blank) what's on the case pages: "The Committee declares that the decision viewable in the history is vacated and not in effect. The history of the case pages are preserved for transparency." The Committee may need to issue a further report, or further statements that can hopefully help heal the wounds of those involved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, it would involve removing the case from the archives. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
(I'm still reviewing this request, but meanwhile a question.) What case was vacated earlier this year? Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Brad, I think he is referring to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin. MBisanz talk 13:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, that's the one - granted, the circumstances were of course somewhat different in that case, I bring it up as an example of how one has been vacated in the very recent past. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Addendum

It is time to embrace the change in approach that the rest of Wikipedia (heck, the rest of the world) have been pushing for more and more recently - this will become even more evident in the next couple of elections. A case was vacated earlier this year; this is another one that needs to be vacated in the manner specified in Kirill's motion.

Tendentious editing, civil POV pushing, problem editing, or whatever else you want to call it, is by far, one of the biggest problems this project is facing. Nothing can be compared to the detrimental effects this has on Wikipedia, the community in general, or those individual users who unfortunately encounter this sort of behaviour regularly.

I've read through this case a couple of times in the past, as if it were any other case. When I noticed many uninvolved members of the community engaging in heated discussion about it off-wiki and criticized certain members of the Committee in an extreme manner, my curiosity was sparked to read it again. I read part of it again just now and this finding got me emotionally charged.

The experience I had when handling a particular problem editor (not that long ago) was disgusting. A number of checkusers (including arb emeritus or arbitrators), as well as admins and editors should have some recollection of who I am referring to. The amount of red tape and formalities I needed to go through (and the time and effort taken) were immensely horrible. It took weeks before there was enough evidence to justify a ban on that problem editor for disruption from sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry - and even that was with some luck. It took months before I was able to demonstrate (for the purposes of red-tape and formality) that the editor had been engaging in POV pushing, extreme rudeness, harassment and general disruption. In any case, I am certain we have all learnt from it. I'm not unexperienced in identifying problem editors - particularly from the sorts of expressions they use, the way they approach a dispute, and the way they approach a dispute. And I'm pretty sure I've been AGF'ing in this regard too. That said, I have no doubt that Matthew Hoffman was one such problem editor based on his contributions.

I was lucky to get through it because of a handful of users from different categories. However, many editors, including one very recently, was not so lucky and left Wikipedia as a result (an arbitrator was made aware of this recently). I appreciate the help the Committee provides in trying to resolve this problem, but this case does not do that; it does the opposite. A large number of the community are afraid to take action due to what may happen to them (i.e. what happened in this case). We're willing to desysop an admin for using some clue and taking action quickly, but we're unwilling to desysop admins who take no action at all? Yes, there were errors in his admin judgement sometimes, but RFC is supposed to provide a 2nd chance. In any case, it's a moot point anyway, as adminship isn't the point of clearing the case.

The case is having a causal effect on editors leaving the project due to the lack of support for community ridding the project of problem editors as early as possible. Such an outcome is not compatible with the goals of this project, and further shakes what confidence the community has in the Committee. I request that the case is vacated in the manner specified in Kirill's well-considered motion so that we can all move on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, I request that the active members of the current Committee do something - we cannot afford to put it as a last priority item or as one that can die without being enacted. Editors are having to handle this problem far too regularly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Chaser

I was tangentially involved in this case. For the reasons stated by Durova above, I think the committee should simply blank the case, leaving Shoemaker's Holiday without his bit, but removing the restriction on how he might get it back. His not asking for it back gives ArbCom a good opportunity to correct their error without forcing them to the logical conclusion of making him an admin again.

The comments below belie how ArbCom decisions are treated in the community. ArbCom de-sysopping has been called the kiss of death for former admins returning to RFA; this was true for Shoemaker's Holiday despite the name change. Negative FoFs in a case follow editors (particularly project-space heavy editors) around the wiki. The final decision included adding a note to Hoffman's block log that ArbCom found the blocks to be unjustified. Shoemaker's Holiday, still an active editor, deserves at least the same consideration as someone no longer contributing here. He is asking for the Committee to once again officially acknowledge a mistake, but this time its own. In practical terms, replacing the page's contents with a big notice that the case has been vacated, à la Orangemarlin, is appropriate.--chaser - t 22:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not enthused about the appearance, if not the reality of rewriting history in the last sentence of 1.3. But I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth.--chaser - t 19:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


Comment by JoshuaZ

The central claim made in the decision to desysop SH was that he was involved in a content dispute with Matthew Hoffman. Given that the last time SH had edited the page in question was 7 months prior to Hoffman's block, does the ArbCom acknowledge that this claim is incorrect? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Sticky Parkin

I have said before that having negative findings of "fact" against them is very vile for the individual, especially if it involves judgments about a person's character, dismissiveness or other obnoxiousness (not saying this is the case here, but in general.) It would be difficult to 'vacate' an entire case, but I think the person should be allowed right to reply at the bottom of the decisions page if they feel false things have been said about them, otherwise a final judgement is made against them which will stand on wikipedia for years to come. Definitely an addendum should be added by the arbs if some false things they said about someone are later seen to be false- or those comments the arbs made which are later seen to be false should be struck out. Or is there Arbcom Infallibility? Clearly not as I like to think we're all partly human, and that arbcom can sometimes admit any errors or excessive obnoxiousness. Sticky Parkin 02:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement of common ground by MastCell

It seems like significant common ground exists, though the emotions inspired by this case seem to have everyone talking past each other. I sense from the Arbs' comments that they see at least some validity in the idea that this case was poorly handled. The resistance to vacating it seems to stem from the belief that the case's conclusions were valid, even if its execution was suboptimal.

Why not just append a resolution indicating that the Arbitration Committee recognizes deficiencies in the handling of this case (ideally, the deficiencies could be enumerated; I offer a modest example here)? That the Committee intends to learn from those deficiencies, in the interest of quality improvement, but at the same time affirms the final remedies as valid? I hear SH saying that the case was handled unfairly, and I hear FT2 saying, "Well, maybe, but the end result was valid." Folks, those are not mutually exclusive viewpoints. MastCell Talk 18:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

  • just a note of aggreement with MastCell's comment. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


Clerk notes

Arbitrator comments

  • I'm open to doing something constructive here in principle; but I'm not quite sure precisely how that might be framed. Arbitration cases are explicitly not binding precedent (and not really even advisory precedent); so the "case law" analogy doesn't really work. We don't, therefore, have any established method for vacating a case, per se—overturning it, yes, but not vacating it. What would you like to see in practical terms? A blanking of the case pages? A motion naming the case as being "vacated"? Or something else? Kirill (prof) 01:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Commenting in general, I think that there is here too great an assumption that arbitration on wikipedia works in a quasi-legal fashion with notions of fairness to the parties applied as they would be in a criminal law case in an adversarial court system. That is not how it works. The concept of fairness applies primarily to the project as a whole. Where a user is being disruptive for matters outside their control, then arbitrators must still act to restrict them to prevent disruption even if doing so appears to be unfair or harsh on the user. To express it another way, the key issue is the disruption and not what lies behind it. In this immediate case the active members of the committee at the time (I was not participating, having only just been appointed) have apologised for the way the case was handled, but not for the decision.
Where that does come in is when we assess whether to remove restrictions. If a user has been disruptive because of some definite cause, and that cause no longer applies, then we ought to remove any restrictions placed on them because they are no longer needed. In this case I see a great deal of argument about whether the original case was decided appropriately but I see precious little to inform me about what positive actions are requested, and how they would benefit Wikipedia. I would like to see this point argued before I go to vote. I endorse everything Kirill says above about the uselessness of 'precedent'; the committee refuses to be bound by precedent so in effect it does not exist as such. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Response to Shoemaker's Holiday: I'm afraid that yet again a request for information about how to benefit the project going forward has been met with information about how decisions in the past were wrong. The most that I think can be done is to courtesy blank the Matthew Hoffman case, and I'm willing to support that, but formally 'vacating' it would be a meaningless act. I am at a loss to know how you interpret Morven's comments as an invitation to disclose confidential information to the community: they are instead plainly a statement that any application for your resysopping should go to the committee in order to preserve confidentiality. As you are not at present applying for resysop the issue does not arise anyway. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • What remedy do you seek? I doubt the Committee would consider revisiting the outcomes, given the facts as they existed then and now. Blanking would achieve little, given that your account was already renamed, the case of course existing under the username of the user you blocked. If people are in a mood to be revisiting things, then let's revisit the discussion of problems in our admin culture that was the substratum to the case, which has not proceeded in all this time. --bainer (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Re Jehochman, I appreciate that what is sought is that the case be "vacated", but what is that intented to mean in substance? --bainer (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I joined Arbcom a month into the case, and so one of my first questions was to review it carefully. The case was initially brought to get a review of the rise in "newbie biting" culture, by reviewing the behavior of those involved in the Matthew Hoffman block and its declined unblock, and assessing if Shoemaker's Holiday had acted properly as an administrator. By itself, this was one block 2 months previous to the case. It would probably not have led to a serious result of the form Charles Matthews had requested. The case was formally accepted due to the divisive issues and to help resolve doubts, a reasonable view. Charles' Matthews also stated that a good explanation was still outstanding despite email requests chased up on the users' talk page in November.

    On that basis, I would consider the case valid. But that wasn't all. By the time I reviewed, I found that there had not been just one mildly questionable block 2 months before the case. There had been multiple clear misuses of admin access, not just one, documented – easily sufficient (in my book) to show a pattern, and easily enough for an RFAR or a request to the Committee to take action. (See for example Findings of Fact # 3, 4, and 9.1.) It is common for a case to be accepted, and then adjust to take account of new factors that are presented in evidence. In this case the new factors included a worrying number of "bad" blocks, not just one. The most recent had been mere days before the case opened, ie at the end of November (and 19 hours before the RFAR case request was posted), not 2 months previous. Any one of those blocks alone might have been enough to formally warn an administrator at RFAR.

    It is obvious and clear that the case process, handling, and so on, was extremely upsetting to Shoemaker's Holiday, some of which I agree with him on, some of which I think he's leaning on too much and isn't merited. Most of the case is history, and that's good. Shoemaker's Holiday has gotten past the issues mostly and that's good. But vacating the case would be asking for agreement the case was not valid, and should never have been heard, and I can't agree on that. I can only agree it should have been heard better in terms of handling than it was - a state of affairs for which numerous statements of apology have been sought and given and I'm at a loss to see what yet another can do. The case (and its final decision) were viable; the "how it got there" which is the issue, is secondary and has been discussed at length. The notion of "I need this case vacated for my own personal peace of mind" doesn't work for me since arbitration cases exist to serve the project, and there was a clearly reasonable and well evidenced project need for it (since bad adminship is a serious concern), even if this could have been processed, documented and followed up a lot better than it was. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(On a side, even if one looks at the initial grounds of the case (the block of Matthew Hoffman) alone, and nothing else, not one user has shown good evidence that 1/ Matthew Hoffman's block was in fact correct, 2/ The decision that condemned that block was unreasonable, or 3/ That an administrator who makes such a block, leading to controversy between administrators, should not have their block directly reviewed at RFAR. In fact it is the norm for desysop requests to go to RFAR without "prior dispute resolution". That Charles may have spoken poorly in his comments, does not change that the case was valid and accepted. FT2 06:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC))
Update - I also reviewed the "remedies posted within 24 hours" claim, since it seems pivotal to the complaint. In fact one arbitrator did clearly jump the gun - Uninvited Company, who posted the proposed findings of fact and remedy on December 3rd. However if you look closely, not one other arbitrator followed suit. Principles are easy to agree (they don't change much, it's often obvious on day #1 what principles are involved, and they act as "recitals" of policy points likely to have been considered). But the next support for any finding of fact or remedy was on December 8, almost a week after the case opened, and well after much of the evidence (including personal disclosures by Vanished user) had been posted and examined.
I anticipate and accept though, that to Vanished user the post on Dec 3 by Uninvited Company might well have looked like a decision was already made, and may have made him feel there was no point posting a more robust response. I feel that post was exceptionally unhelpful, since there was no way at all that it could be more than a largely speculative proposal at that time, and prone to significant amendment. But this should not be read as endorsement that the case itself finally was wrong; the final finding was of misuse of admin access and when I reviewed in January on joining, and again this last week, this conclusion was very clear and exceptionally well evidenced.
(As a side note, one of my first recommendations for change in January 2008, was that a proposed decision should not be posted until 7 days into the case at minimum, for most cases, exactly because of my awareness of this matter.) FT2 (Talk | email) 16:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Motions

There are 11 active arbitrators (excluding one recusal) on these motions, so the majority is 6.

1) All pages of the Matthew Hoffman case shall be blanked and replaced with a notice that the case is vacated. This is done with the understanding that Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs) shall consult with the Committee should he wish to become an administrator.

Support:
  1. Kirill (prof) 21:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. After reading the discussion that are happening all over Wikipedia on this topic now, and remember the past discussions, I think that we need to step up and recognize that we got this wrong and fix it. We need to vacate this ruling. If needed we can write a short factual statement that explains the reason for the desysop. This is better than having a standing ruling that much of the Community thinks is dead wrong. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Second choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Would not vacate, for reasons above. Whatever the closure value of this might be, and however much upset some parts of the handling may have caused, the roots of the case itself were serious, valid, and the case appropriately brought to RFAR, when I reviewed it. Many users have objections to an RFAR case where they were parties, but vacating a case implies more than "some process lapses". It would imply the entire case had no grounds, or that a massive mistake of fact that was later recognized, means that the beliefs the decision was based upon, were grossly mistaken. Even if one looked at the initial grounds of the case request alone, and nothing else, the case was valid. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. No. I would support courtesy blanking but not 'vacating'. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. Per FT2, Sam. James F. (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Prefer 1.3 below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. Although I think the conclusions reached in the case were sound, I've decided to abstain from all of these motions as I did not participate in the case. --bainer (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

1.1) All pages of the Matthew Hoffman case shall be courtesy blanked. This is done with the understanding that Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs) shall consult with the Committee should he wish to become an administrator.

Support:
  1. Second choice, although frankly I can't fathom what the benefit of blanking but not vacating is, at this late stage. Kirill (prof) 05:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support although I do not think we need a motion to do it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Not enough. If we need to start over and write the an accurate factual statement about why he lost the tools, then we can do it. Blanking a ruling helps, but there are real issues with the ruling that need to be addressed, I think. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. Per Flo. James F. (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Prefer 1.3 below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. Although I think the conclusions reached in the case were sound, I've decided to abstain from all of these motions as I did not participate in the case. --bainer (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

1.2) All pages of the Matthew Hoffman case shall be blanked with an edit summary saying, "The Matthew Hoffman case ruling is no longer active", and will be replaced with the statement, "After receiving feedback about the use of his administrative tools, Shoemaker's Holiday voluntarily agreed to give up his tools and in the future to consult with the Arbitration Committee should he want to have them returned."

Support:
  1. Adam and I discussed wording and he agreed to something along these lines. (Adam, I tweaked it a little but don't think I changed the meaning of our agreed wording. Let me know if you think differently.) I think that this is a fair statement about what happened. Mistakes were made by many people in this situation. It is for the best if we all put it behind us and move on. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC) First choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill (prof) 01:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Oppose on grounds that "the case ruling is no longer active" is a meaningless phrase. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. Per my opposition to 1.0. James F. (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Prefer 1.3 below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. Although I think the conclusions reached in the case were sound, I've decided to abstain from all of these motions as I did not participate in the case. --bainer (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

1.3) In light of all the circumstances presented, the findings and remedies contained in this committee's decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman are withdrawn insofar as they reflect adversely on the editor identified as "Vanished user." A notation to this effect will be made on the case pages, which have already been courtesy blanked. This action is based on the cumulative circumstances, and does not constitute a precedent for the routine withdrawal or vacating of arbitration decisions based on later disagreement with the decisions reached. The committee notes that after receiving feedback about the use of his administrator tools, Shoemaker's Holiday voluntarily agreed to give up his tools and to consult with the Arbitration Committee should he wish to become an administrator in the future.

Support
  1. After careful consideration, propose this wording as the best expression of what should reasonably be done. Uncharacteristically, I will not add further to the very substantial discussion that the case has already received. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. This is fine too. Kirill (prof) 06:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. I can accept this wording and hope it helps remove some of the hurt in this case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  4. Works for me. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  5. I can accept this, though per FT2, I have concerns that this will be seen in the wrong light. James F. (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  6. Good enough. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose

  1. On principle. Findings that were properly decided, and accurately represent principles, actions, incidents, decisions, and communal norms related to these, would remain valid. I'm not quite sure how one "unfinds" that admin tools were misused, for example, when the evidence even on review makes it clear to an uninvolved administrator or user that this was the case. While I am acutely aware of the hurt felt (I've been a strong supporter of Shoemaker's holiday for as long as I've known him), any party in any case may feel "hurt" -- this isn't a good enough reason for removing valid verifiable findings of a case even if the processes that case followed leave a lot to be desired. This would be the same regardless of any standing of the requesting party.

    The aim in this motion is to reduce the upset felt by a user, which I support... but at the cost of "unfinding" matters that genuinely took place and that were rightly deemed improper by the Committee, undertaken by that user. Specifically, multiple other users were blocked, and multiple other users were prevented from editing by utterly wrongful protection applied by an administrator who was heavily involved in editing "against" them; some users were described on the wiki as vandals who were not. These users mattered too. The level of pragmatism required to "unfind" these points is not one I feel is good precedent, or a wise compromise. I am unable to endorse a proposed decision to do so. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Abstain
  1. Although I think the conclusions reached in the case were sound, I've decided to abstain from all of these motions as I did not participate in the case. --bainer (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_21&oldid=1090408966"