Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Daniel (talk | contribs)
Autopatrolled, Administrators
73,910 edits
+
Jack Merridew (talk | contribs)
34,837 edits
Line 251: Line 251:


Cheers, [[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]] 14:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, [[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]] 14:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

; Wow
: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=198412514 This], from yesterday, includes a link to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=30333903#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FCoolcat.2C_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek this], from 2 and a half years ago, which gives [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACoolcat&diff=15060725&oldid=15060607 this].

: Cheers, [[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]] 09:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


==== Statement by [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] ====
==== Statement by [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] ====

Revision as of 09:49, 16 March 2008

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Shortcuts

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:


Current requests

Appeal of topic ban for User:Whig

Initiated by —Whig (talk) at 17:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

Statement by Whig

I request review of a topic ban that was imposed upon me following a discussion on WP:AN which I had initiated.

  • Tanthalas39's comments [1] and [2] observing fishy, frivolous evidence against me should be noted.
  • Carcharoth's comments including [3] should also be noted.

There have been a number of RfC's in regards to my account in the past. RfC1 is not relevant to this case except as an historical item, it was closed and with a consensus that it should not have been brought and that I had done nothing wrong.

RfC2 and RfC3 are precedent to this topic ban, and were brought against me by a now vanished user as justification to indefinitely block me against policy. Note that the same users who were against me in RfC2/RfC3 are lined up against me here. I would particularly note the outside view by Sbowers3 in RfC3 [4].

Statement by Moreschi

No. Whig is the classic tendentious editor who has remained unbanned to date purely via the backing of a small crowd of fellow homeopathy-advocacy SPAs. The community has acted wholly correctly (maybe even a little whimpishly) on this occasion (for a change). ArbCom acting here would be a colossally thick idea.Moreschi (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Kirill is quite right. We've got to get a proper way of doing this community sanction lark, because they are necessary. We're not babies and should not require Daddy ArbCom to solve all our problems for us. In this case, it was very straightforward. In others it may require more thought, and we are ill-adapted for those cases. We've already had one go at sorting this out. That didn't work, for a variety of reasons. Intelligent people need to apply brainpower to coming up with another solution. Moreschi (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jay*Jay

I am in two minds about this one. I am absolutely convinced that a community sanction of Whig is justified, and note that the sanction imposed is less than the one advocated by Whig's former mentor. I also note that Whig remains under editing restrictions until mid April from a previous sanction imposed following AN/I discussions, and has had two recent RfCs. I concur with Moreschi that the sanction imposed could easily have been harsher, and a considerable body of support existed for an six month outright ban.

Having said all of that, there have been questions raised (notably by Carcharoth) about the process used - and many of those concerns are justified. The problem stems from the lack of an appropriately structured process for imposing community sanctions based on consensus - a problem being actively discussed at WT:Community sanction. Similar concerns surround the process of sanctioning Mantanmoreland.

I have expressed the view at the AN discussion where Whig's sanction was decided that I would support the sanction being lifted for the purpose of conducting a discussion under an appropriately structured process. However, I have also stated that this should only be done with Whig's agreement. Whig expressed his intention to appeal well before the AN discussion was concluded, and did not offer any serious rebuttal of the evidence produced, simply asserting that he had refuted the evidence. He has the right to appeal, but I believe that such appeals will become routine if the 'harshest' outcome possible is that the sanction is affirmed.

My suggestion to the Committee is as follows:

  • notify Whig that he has the right to withdraw the appeal, in which case the topic ban stands.
  • if he persists with the appeal, and the committee decides to act, such actions should take one of the following paths:
    • endorse the sanction in this particular case and call for the community to establish a procedurally fair, transparent, and appropriately structured process for handling such matters;
    • overturn the sanction on process grounds and remit to the community for reconsideration under a procedurally fair, transparent, and appropriately structured process - recognising that such a process could opt for an outright ban instead of a topic ban of some duration; or,
    • overturn the topic ban and immediately move to a full arbitration case to consider Whig.
  • a third option would be to decline to hear the appeal 9(in which case the ban would remain in force) but to note that a right of appeal exists for Whig to exercise should he so choose to any new process established following the on-going community discussion.

These suggestions allow Whig to accept his ban, or to have a reconsideration on process grounds but recognising that such a reconsideration could lead to a more severe sanction. Of course, the reconsideration - whether by the community or by the Committee - could also result in no sanction being imposed. Given the near-unanimity of the community sentiment concerning Whig - with I believe only three editors (Anthon01, DanaUllman, and The Tutor - all of whom are involved and support Whig's POV) expressing serious concern that the sanction was unjustified (as opposed to expressing concerns about the process) - I believe that overturning the ban as unjustified without an extensive consideration of evidence (for which this page is not designed) would be inappropriate. I believe that the community response to such an action would likely be volatile. Jay*Jay (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the submission above was written on the assumption that this was a request for clarification or other matter, not a request to open a case. If a clerk moves this to that section - as seems likely - then my statement stands. If it remains as a request for a case to be opened, I recommend it be declined as premature, to allow for the discussion of formalising community sanction procedures to continue. A request by Whig for reconsideration under that new process would certainly receive my support. Jay*Jay (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Abd

I became aware of the problems Whig had been having, and reviewed his recent ANI report, et seq, and was concerned that some aspects of the process did seem unfair, as if he was being railroaded; Whig was previously blocked, possibly inappropriately, by an administrator who has since been de-sysopped; however, the history was complex and I formed no ultimate conclusion, simply noting, for myself, that he did appear to have some grounds for complaint. And had obviously offended some users, whether that was fair or not. So I set up a "pre-arbitration" page in my user space and invited him to detail his case; but, to avoid wasting time, I asked him to find a "second," someone who agreed that there was a problem worth investigating. (The intention was that he would lay out his case, then he might point it out to someone who, from his extensive history, he would think might be sympathetic.) Had he found such, I'd have then facilitated the process of putting together a sourced history of what actually happened, for starters, and none of this would be wasted if he later decided to go to Arbitration, the evidence would all be laid out. However, he declined, seeming to think that it was too difficult to find a "second." I'd urge him to withdraw his Arbitration request at this time, and pursue alternative methods of dispute resolution, whether RfC (involving allegations of administrative misconduct), Mediation, or what I suggested. If those fail, he could come back here. But if he fails here, there may be no going back.--Abd (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lawrence Cohen

The consensus on this AN thread formed quickly, and solidly, and was in fact in favor of permanently removing Whig from Wikipedia. He's clearly a skilled editor that really knows his rules, and at the end I put forward the section for essentially a "bulletproof" topic ban that completely cut him off from the specific topics and subjects in Wikipedia that keep getting Whig into trouble again, and again, and again, and again. The consensus as developed was clearly for a topic ban, with half again as many in support of an outright community ban. I was the one who effectively short-circuited Whig getting summarily indefinitely banned from Wikipedia, by tossing out the heavily-binding topic ban, which people leapt at afterwards. The only major opposition to any action vs. Whig was from other well known homeopathy SPAs like Danaullman and Anthon01, among others. At the same time, we had the science defender crowd calling for Whig's removal just as much. When you add in the chorus of support for banning or heavy restriction from the neutral crowd that isn't directly on either side, it was clear that Whig was either leaving by the door or staying with a restriction to protect Wikipedia from further disruption. I had the bright (or stupid, I don't know) idea of trying to make it so Whig could stay on Wikipedia doing anything else at all--so long as it had nothing in any conceivable way, shape, or form to do with science or homeopathy related articles. This was the 6-month topic ban I wrote:

A 6-month ban on any and all interation on-Wiki, broadly interpreted, of any homeopathy or science articles, broadly interpreted. Any and all edits involving these articles, or discussions of issues with these articles, will result in escalating blocks from any non-involved admin. Simply put, that section of Wikipedia and discussion of it is off-limits to User:Whig under any username.

Is it really so critical for Wikipedia and Whig to allow the continuance of massive disruption and ill will from his tenditious involvement on these articles? It was either this solution, or Whig was gone completely. If Whig is here for Wikipedia, and not his personal goals, is 6 months of editing other content really so terrible? Lawrence § t/e 18:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response to Whig's just added comments The AC already appears ready to reject this appeal, so that the ban will stand for the 6 months, but his revisionist history of how things turned out is just not acceptable, such as his framing of the latter RFCs brought against him, and repeatedly misleading people by hook or crook that he's never been under editing restrictions. A restriction is a restriction is a probation, and everyone is entitled to know what it is, and those under established ones shouldn't Wikilawyer ad nauseum about them. Whig is now on his last straw and is even beginning to wear thin on those who empathized with him and tried to save his bacon. Lawrence § t/e 20:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

I have not used administrative tools on Whig's account as far as I remember, and a search of my last 500 log entries also reveals nothing related to Whig. I was apparently the target of Whig's complaints that originally started the Administrators' noticeboard thread, relating to a record keeping matter on Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. The community had an adverse reaction to Whig's complaint, and subsequently attempted to impose a topic ban on Whig. I think a topic ban or outright ban would be justifiable given the extensive history of disruption and second chances. However, I find Whig to be intelligent and personable, so my gut feeling is that we should find a way to try to work with them if at all possible. Keeping Whig out of problem areas is probably the best way to avoid an indefinite community ban. I hope the committee will review this matter on an expedited basis, and I would welcome any help in sharpening the wording of the remedy that was passed. If the Committee finds that the process was not sufficient, I invite them to overturn the sanction and make a determination about what sort of sanction, if any, would be proper. I also encourage any interested editors to help clarify the process for implementing community sanctions for the sake of reducing controversy. Jehochman Talk 19:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

Having looked into this as a result of this request, I would say this is one of the most unambiguously correct and thoroughly justified sanctions imposed outside of Arbitration. I urge the Arbitrators to accept the case simply in order to increase this to a one year ban from the project. Whig's involvement in Wikipedia has been a titanic waste of other people's energy, time and good faith. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by David Mestel

Without commenting on the merits of this case, I have a few observations to make on Newyorkbrad's comments below. He proposes four criteria for assessing requests for review. The first, third and fourth I certainly agree with. However, I think that his test in the second is too demanding: "shocking to our sense of fairness" is too high a barrier. I would suggest that "raises serious concerns as to its merits/severity" would be better: everyone should have the right, in my view, to present the merits of their case to the committee, and to explain why it should raise concerns. "Shocking" is not, in my view, a sufficient barrier to Requests for Lynching. David Mestel(Talk) 20:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David may be right about this. Modified a bit. Threaded comment permitted per IAR just this once. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In a perversion of your perennial turn of phrase, fist-fighting in front of the rest of the bench may not to wonders for your credibility as a judge :-P. Incidentally, are your proposals intended to apply to all community sanctions, including bans, or only to editing restrictions and the like? David Mestel(Talk) 20:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)

  • Reject. While the need for a better-designed community sanction process is a valid concern—and has been previously noted by the Committee—I see no evidence that we need to second-guess the community's judgement in this particular matter. Kirill 19:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. I am happy with the community's judgement here. James F. (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject per Kirill. FloNight ♣♣♣ 20:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject for the reasons given by Kirill. I would go further and say it seems inappropriate for the committee, having closed a case and passed enforcement provisions to the community within some boundaries, to then say "that's not what we meant at all!" and overturn community-imposed sanctions that are entirely within the set boundaries. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Without cabining the scope of the committee's discretion, I could foresee our accepting a case for review of a community sanction where (1) the community discussion raised serious questions of procedural fairness (e.g., a truncacted discussion, or one with only limited participation, or one that somehow barred interested editors from participating—this is not meant to encourage a legalistic approach or a search for technicalities), (2) the severity of the community sanction appeared shocking to our sense of fairness to raise serious concerns as to its merits or severity (this does not mean merely that we might not have imposed a somewhat less or more severe sanction, but that the community process appeared to have produced a serious injustice—a circumstance that I expect would be very rare); (3) there was a bona fide dispute as to whether consensus in favor of the sanction had actually been achieved (of course, this begs the question of what is a sufficient consensus for this type of remedy); or (4) the community sanction discussion raised broader concerns, beyond the sanction applied to a particular user or small group of users. In this case, the community discussion appears to have enjoyed a reasonable degree of participation, to have been open for a sufficient length of time, to have proceeded with decorum, and to have reached a justified conclusion. The community consensus seems to be that Whig brings a sufficiently strong point of view to his primary topic of editing interest such that, despite repeated chances, he has repeatedly been unable to edit with an NPOV in this area and should therefore be restricted from the area for an appropriate period of time. The result appears to be within the range of reasonable outcomes for the discussion and therefore, with regret as to the impact on Whig personally, the request for review should be declined. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Merridew

Initiated by -- Cat chi? 19:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Statement by White Cat

The user to date had 3 known accounts. And a suspected 4th one (hence this case)

The relevant cases are (a select list for practical purposes)

Thats 1 RFC, 5 Checkuser cases, and 2 rfars. I feel I have exhausted all forms of dispute resolution and would prefer not to get indulged in it any more for this user. I promised myself not to file another one but I am here given the community apathy.

Now in all fairness Davenbelle and Moby Dick were never confirmed to be sockpuppets because the checkuser logs expired before a check was run on Moby Dick. But both Davenbelle, Moby Dick edit from the same geographic region, Bali, Indonesia. Arbcom treated Moby Dick and Davenbelle like the same person on the Moby Dick RfAr. Diyarbakir also "coincidentally" edited from Bali, Indonesia as well as the same computer as Moby Dick. Moby Dick and his confirmed sockpuppet Diyarbakir had been banned indefinitely for "an impressive amount of stalking".

The conduct of Moby Dick can be summarized as:

I suspect User:Jack Merridew, who is confirmed to edit from Bali Indonesia, may be a sockpuppet of Davenbelle based on the evidence I presented in the following case: WP:RFAR/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence/by White Cat#Real identity of Jack Merridew: Could it be Davenbelle/Moby Dick

This latest edit was over my recent attempted move of the gallery at Depiction of Jesus to commons on 11:02, 10 March 2008. There was one image (Image:Divine_Mercy_(Adolf_Hyla_painting)2007-08-16.jpg) licensed under fair-use in the gallery which was not commons compatible so I did not carry it to commons and removed it from the gallery of images. I further removed the fair use rationale from the image description page as it was no longer needed on 10:58, 10 March 2008. Now Jack Merridew reported my edits to User:Johnbod on 11:32, 10 March 2008. That is 34 minutes after I edited the image and 30 minutes after I edited the article.

-- Cat chi? 19:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

To put it graphically:

Past - 18 Dec 19 Dec 2006 - 7 Mar 2007 8 - 26 March 27 March 28 March - 8 April 9 April - 10 April 11 - 19 April 20 - 22 April 23 April 24 - 25 April 26 April - 2 May 3 - 7 May 8 May - Present
Moby Dick Edits 103 days Edits 38 days Moby Dick block discussion Blocked
Diyarbakir* Edits 41 days Edits 12 days Edits 2 days
Jack Merridew Not registered Edits 18 days Edits
  • The above graph may fool you to think that Moby Dick had made edits between 26 April - 2 May. However Moby Dick had made his last edit on 10 April from the account User:Diyarbakir. The marked time frame is community discussion which Moby Dick did not take part from a known account.
  • Moby Dick did make a single edit from the account User:Moby Dick on 27 March 2007 which was the first one from that account since 18 December 2006 and that was the last one ever from that account.
Response to statement by Tony Sidaway

Past case on Moby Dick had been completely ineffective in getting Moby Dick off of me. The ban of Diyarbakir and Moby Dick kept Davenbelle off of wikipedia for something like a week or less if Jack Merridew is ruled to be yet another sockpuppet. This would mean Davenbelle had been stalking me for a full three years in about 1.5 months it will be the anniversary of Moby Dick's indef block. I do not need to express my frustration in words I hope.

I am bringing this to arbcom rather than ani or arbcom enforcement because every person I have asked to date refused to even look at it. I could have named it "Davenbelle 2" but that felt like a movie title for some reason.

-- Cat chi? 19:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to comment by Sceptre

That would require me to have a level of faith in this community. I do not. The community had a consistent hostile attitude towards me any time I bring up "Davenbelle".

Also indefinitely blocking him alone is not an adequate way to get rid of Davenbelle as it has been the case time after another. Additional remedies may be warranted if I am right in my assertion that Jack Merridew is Davenbelle

-- Cat chi? 22:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Despite the claim of Arbitrator Kirill Lokshin

Checkuser has CONFIRMED Jack Merridew's geographic location to be compatible with Davenbelle. Kirill Lokshin's insistence on ignoring this simply baffles me.

-- Cat chi? 22:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to statement by Jack Merridew

It takes very little effort to notice this edit or these edits. I do not need to waste time and study your edits to notice them. Both cases are threads you should not even be aware of. It is a big wiki after all. While your presence on the ANI thread may have some other rational explanation (mere coincidence), your presence on User talk:Johnbod does not.

-- Cat chi? 19:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to statements claiming I have a vendetta or grudge against Jack Merridew (or anybody)

Such people with vendettas and/or grudges are unwelcome on wikipedia. Arbcom should accept this case and ban me indefinitely if such is the case. If that is not the case perhaps evidence can be analyzed and not dismissed without being given a second thought.

I also challenge such people. If they do not even find any of this evidence vaguely suspicious, perhaps they have an alternate rational explanation.

-- Cat chi? 11:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jack Merridew

I was asked by White Cat to look at this; thing is, I've seen this before, everyone has. He's been trucking this all over the wiki for a month. Arbitrators, please see your talk pages. He makes a great fuss over his having sussed-out my IP and seems to view Bali as not much different than when Margaret Mead reported on it.

He claims I stalk him, but his so-called evidence implies a study of every edit I make. He has been utterly hostile towards me ever since the review of the Oh My Goddess episodes and my redirection of them. He made no effort at all to add sources to any of those articles or in anyway acknowledge any issue; as if they were perfect — shrines to his fandom. He holds a grudge over this issue; this would seem to be his sole reason for involving himself in the TV E&C cases.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow
This, from yesterday, includes a link to this, from 2 and a half years ago, which gives this.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Technically, aren't you just asking for a new motion in the old case identifying Jack Merridew as the old banned sock artist? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient. sceptre. White Cat has suffered long and proven harassment in the past. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sceptre

Personally, I think this is trying to inflame the Episodes and Characters dispute, contrary to the arbitration committee's instructions. The proper venue is suspected sock puppets, not requests for arbitration. Will (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Black Kite

Not the place for this; we have RFCU and SSP for a reason. Stop wasting people's time, please. Black Kite 00:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Eusebeus

Agree with the above. Take this to RFCU and SSP. If that fails to provide substantiation (as I believe is the case), then this frivolous and disputatious action is grounds for an RFC against WhiteCat with a view to sanction for a proven pattern of obsessive disruptiveness and non-constructive editing. Wikipedia is a poorer place for tolerating this kind of thing and it drives good editors away. Eusebeus (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Ned Scott

Very inappropriate, very paranoid. -- Ned Scott 09:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Colonel Warden

I don't know anything about the White Cat matter but had a clash with Jack Merridew the other day which I had to walk away from. He exhibits a wide range of problem behaviours - bad language, stalking, threats and disruptive edits. If he encounters another editor who is equally willful, then one should expect trouble. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jéské

While I know nothing of White Cat or his behavior, I will note that Merridew, during the E&C 2 case, was being targeted by the same garbage that has been targeting User:J Milburn , the various admin noticeboards, and myself as of late (i.e. mass-spammed death threats and general trolling) and was being WikiStalked (see this RFCU) because he was working on tagging articles related to Dungeons & Dragons.

However,looking at this request right now, while I question the fact that Merridew has any other accounts other than what he's already known to have, White Cat's statement certainly gives me pause. Bury the hatchet, White Cat. For your sake, Wikipedia's sake, and the sake of the two E&C ArbComm cases you've been involved in, throw your whetstone out. This reads less like an ArbComm request and more like a vendetta. -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 04:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal to White Cat's response to statements about him having a vendetta

I am not suggesting you have a vendetta; far from it. What I'm saying is that this arbitration request appears to be motivated less by the common good and more from spite. -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 18:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Pixelface

I have to disagree with the views of Sceptre, Black Kite, Eusebeus, Ned Scott, and Jéské Couriano. An arbitrator suggested White Cat make a request for arbitration and I have no reason to question White Cat's request. White Cat suspected Jack Merridew was Davenbelle even before a checkuser said that Jack Merridew and Davenbelle are located in the same city. White Cat is either good at pissing off people in Indonesia who edit the English-language Wikipedia and who like to follow editors around or White Cat is dealing with another sock. If it's another sock, White Cat has already tried multiple steps in dispute resolution. Although...two recent arbitration cases make me think that White Cat may get a quicker (and perhaps more satisfactory) response with WP:SSP.

Casliber suggested a request for checkuser of all involved parties in the recently closed Episodes and characters 2 case. Oddly, the other day Jack Merridew contacted Casliber[5], and also contacted me[6] out of the blue with a message from the "Work Assignments Committee". I believe this was a joke related to a proposal Casliber made in the workshop of that case. I don't know why Jack Merridew contacted me in particular. I did suggest Jack Merridew be listed as an involved party in the E&C2 case.

During the E&C2 case, I believe Jack Merridew followed me around to various AFDs and I believe that editor has engaged in wikistalking. I suppose one could make a request to amend the E&C2 case if Jack Merridew is following E&C2 parties around. Jack Merridew has recently been edit-warring [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] over an article I mentioned in my evidence in the E&C2 case, King Dedede. That article was recently protected by Black Kite, an involved party of the E&C2 case. While Jack Merridew was never officially listed as an involved party, the recent behavior by that editor could be seen as a violation of the remedy that said "the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute." --Pixelface (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/3/0/0)

BetacommandBot

Initiated by Maxim(talk) at 23:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Note: This is a list of the editors I've found most often lurking around at WP:AN/B. Feel free to add or remove users if necessary.
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Maxim

We're sadly lacking this, thus there is the need for arbitration

This is a reasonably complex case involving numerous issues. Betacommand runs a bot, named BetacommandBot whose tasks include fair-use tagging. Betacommand has used his bot to tag thousands of images per policy, Non-free content crteria. The policy was made after a board resolution on March 23 2007 gave a year to fix non-free media. Unfortunately, the communication between Betacommand and users who wholeheatedly agree with these activities and users who are opposed to it has been less than stellar. This is a very heated conflict, as Betacommand is constantly subject to abuse and trolling, and he feels a bit alienated by this. I urge the Abritration Committee to look at the behaviour of users in this debate, possibly rule on the application on the policy, and basically, help resolve this conflict over fair use policy and the resulting incivility and mess that has ensued with it.

Note 1: I've tried to give a short summary of the conflict here, but I'm not exactly good at writing intros and similar stuff like that, and I'm biased in this case as well, so my summary is probably not neutral.
Note 2: The list of parties isn't comprehensive, and there are probably omissions and additions that shouldn't be there.
More: I personally think that the community isn't making progress; even if it is making some progress, I think there's too much bad-faith, incivility and the zOMG WIKIDRAMA with this. Betacommand has indicated a desire for an arb case for quite a bit now, and many think that an arb case is inevitable. I'd prefer to try to cut all the bad-faith, incivility and zOMG WIKIDRAMA as soon as possible, preferably through the intervention of the arbitration committee.

Statement by JzG

No, actually, Maxim states it really well. A job needs doing, but some people dispute it needs doing, and those who don't dispute it spend a lot of time trying to pour oil on troubled waters. A really unambiguous ruling on what should be done, by whom,and in what way, would be tremendously helpful. The community (for various values thereof) is doing a crap job of fixing this.

I concur with other comments: the problem is not BetacommandBot per se or Betacommand in particular, it's the handling of unfree content. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Avruch

I think there are a number of problems in this area, but I'm not sure which of them can really be addressed through Arbitration. Maxim didn't really make a case for this above - more like, here's a problem, fix it! I'm not sure the remit of ArbCom is broad enough to allow them to take this case on their own initiative - i.e., without an explanation of why they should. It should be noted, also, that slow and painful progress on the Betacommand/BetacommandBot issues is being made, particularly with the brand new creation of a separate bot account to allow three other users the ability to perform BCBot functions. This wasn't without its own controversy, but it will fade with time and there will be one less BC associated problem to deal with.

Anyway - the problems here aren't that amenable to ArbCom intervention. The issues of Betacommand's conduct have been dealt with when extremes are hit, and that will continue to happen. Conduct by other individuals is not really at the ArbCom level. The policy issue is still a problem, but the time for an ArbCom determination has passed as the tagging work is largely complete. Plus - this isn't Requests for arbitration/10C. Avruch T 00:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts by AGK

The dispute over Betacommand's bot account is a long-running one, and one which has attracted large volumes of controversy over its history. BCB has been blocked more times than one cares to count, and has long been criticised for reasons varying from design faults, to a lack of publicly-available source code.

The Community has been attempting to resolve this dispute for some time now, and I believe that we are making progress. The creation of WP:AN/B does typify the editorial community's desire to resolve this dispute peacefully, and with a resolution which awards the least amount of drama possible to either side. Although I believe that the AN discussion requires more focus for its discussions to yield better results, I do not believe the dispute has progressed to levels where arbitration is necessary: the community is more than capable of bringing this dispute to a resolution.

Similarly, whilst I can understand the reasoning behind this case being filed at the present moment, I believe that the case is still premature and unnecessary. AGK (contact) 00:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sceptre

I don't think this request should be accepted as the issue would largely moot itself before a case would reach the voting stage. If it is accepted, it should be at a neutral title like "fair use tagging", as neither side is being angelic in this case. Will (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know what call it, but all this mess revolved around BCBot. Hopefully the clerks would find a better nake. ;-) Maxim(talk) 19:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GSV Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The

This drone has no known serious unresolved software faults, it's doing an essential job and it's well under control, if somewhat eccentric. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dystopos

I don't know if I qualify as an involved party since I haven't engaged in much of the discussion before. I hope to contribute to this discussion because it does go back to root issues, which I feel competent to understand better than behavioral issues in recent disputes. -- For me, the root issue is whether, given the monumental task of overhauling nonfee content descriptions, it is better for Wikipedians to (A) execute a project to involve hardworking contributors in the identification and correction of problems or to (B) unleash an investigative robot to seek out people whose contributions don't pass muster and nag them until they correct the problem themselves. -- I believe it is important to prefer the former as a matter of Wikiquette. I make reference to Wikipedia:Be bold ("If you see something that can be improved, do not hesitate to do it yourself." [emphasis mine]) and Wikipedia:Incivility, which cautions against "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another". -- By current policy, image uploaders have a lot of help and guidance toward meeting WP's non-free content policy. Many images now being tagged by Betacommandbot were uploaded long ago when generic templates for screenshots, company logos, book covers, and the like were assumed to be sufficient. So even if throwing blame at recent uploaders can be justified, the approach toward older content with no apparent bad faith on the part of the uploader, may need to be more collaborative than condemnatory. --Dystopos (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MBisanz

Well I was in the middle of drafting my own RFAR in this matter at User:MBisanz/RFAR. If this matter is accepted, and I believe it should of course, I'll just re-draft as evidence. If this version is rejected, I will probably continue with my original plan of waiting until after the March 23rd deadline, per Carcharoth's suggestion. For those viewing my draft, I've only reviewed the edits of Betacommand for the last month. I am still in the process of reviewing the edits of Betacommand2 and Betacommandbot. I've finished my statement as far as I can for an RFAR of this focus and time. MBisanz talk 02:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since its taking time to gather all the diffs, I'm transcluding what I have so far so it will update as I add to it.
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I bring this request with a heavy heart. Having supported the process to make all images fairuse compliant and defended Betacommand numerous times against what I felt were unfair attacks I believed that the end of the legacy image tagging project would result in an end to the constant debate, however, I now believe I misjudged the situation. Over the last several months Betacommand has violated several behavioral guidelines. While this would normally not be enough to warrant an Arbcom, he has also violated Bot Policy on multiple occasions with his bot, BetacommandBot (talk · contribs). This is not an isolated incident, but rather a lengthy pattern of behavior in various forums. Prior attempts as dispute resolution have been unsuccessful in part due to his refusal to actively engage in meaningful conversation and in part due to the ad-hoc nature of the pre-Arbcom DR steps. Specifically, I take issue with:

  1. The irresponsible spamming of MickMacNee's talk page. WP:DR is not an optional process to be followed when we feel like it.
  2. Disregarding the explicit wording of Bot Policy in using a bot on People Categories.
  3. Running up the edit count of the mainpage without prior approval
  4. Continuing to refuse to communicate with regard to good faith inquiries and community consensus
  5. Responding to matters in an uncivil manner despite being aware of the policies and having been warned multiple times. What some might call a fait accompli.

For the record, I state the following policies and guidelines I feel Betacommand has violated, with supporting diffs.

Policies


Guidelines

Additional statement by MBisanz
In this comment created after the filing of this RFAR, Betacommand describes he knew that the removal of the redlinked cats would cause widespread article disruption and force the hand-correction of thousands of articles by editors watching them, this running the risk of extreme collateral damage from unwatched articles and userspace violations. He continues to contend this he acted correctly in doing this purposefully disruptive action on a Bot account without approval. This seems to directly contravene the bot policy that bots must be harmless, useful, not consume unnecessary resources, performs only tasks for which there is consensus, and adheres to relevant policies and guidelines. As far as I can tell, thousands of wrong edits to force users to correct immaterial errors is a vast waste of resources, is harmful both to watched and unwatched articles, is something that has no consensus, and does not adhere to the policies against making a WP:POINT. Further, it should not be up to Bots to motivate people to do thing that are not specifically required by policy. They are supposed to do tedious work to save human editors from having to do it, not force human editors to do more tedious work faster. MBisanz talk 08:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Crotalus horridus

I see the problems as fourfold:

  • Betacommand won't release his bot's source code. Since we are an open-content project, I do not find this acceptable. We shouldn't have "black boxes" editing Wikipedia.
  • Betacommand is not very good at interpersonal communication. This means that an already touchy task becomes a constant flashpoint. I think there are other users who could probably handle a non-free content bot with better communication skills and less drama.
  • Betacommand often uses his bot for unapproved tasks (like adding garbage edits to the Main Page). Since his bot performs multiple tasks, this makes it almost impossible to block for any length of time, and often means that he has few or no restrictions on his behavior.
  • The bot doesn't always operate properly. I have personally had at least one free image (Image:Standing Liberty Quarter.png) tagged for deletion by it. Since his source code is not public, the community can't ensure these issues are fixed, and Betacommand is often uncommunicative in handling them.

I think that Betacommand should be required to release the source code to BetacommandBot, and the functions of the bot should be turned over to another user — or, preferably, to a group consisting of more than one person, thus providing additional coverage to handle the inevitable issues that will arise. *** Crotalus *** 02:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand's response to Crotalus horridus

  • point one, those users who I trust have access to the code, User:Lar for example has a copy of the BCBot Non-free content tagging scripts
  • Two, I handle myself fairly well, given the amount of trolling and abuse that is thrown at me.
  • four, I wish you had brought that to my attention ten months ago when that happened, I would have been able to tell you what happened there. but given the amount of time that has passed it is difficult to pin it down. If a user brings an issue to me I gladly quickly address it.
  • βcommand 03:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Allstarecho

Unfortunately, and opposite of what Betacommand has said above me, he doesn't address issues quickly. He remains mostly silent, and when he does speak it's foul-mouthed rants. His bot has been running tasks that it was never approved to do. Further, I've asked him on numerous occasions to please keep his bot off of my user pages, only to be met with rude replies. I, and others, just simply want his bot, BetacommandBot, to learn some manners by acknowleding the {{bots}}/{{nobots}} tags on userpages and respecting those tags. Once the bot has learned some manners, we can then work on Betacommand's own manners. Telling people "I don't have to do" this and that, and "that proposal will rot in hell" and "this is bullshit", etc. isn't the best way to not have people on your ass. Just simply run the bot for the tasks it was approved for - nothing more, nothing less, make the bot follow the bots/nobots tags on user pages and user talk pages, and Betacommand should read WP:CIVIL twice a day for a month. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 05:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LaraLove

I don't think there's much that ArbCom can do at this point. Progress is being made, as has been noted by others. It's slow, but it's happening. The situation, as it currently stands, is still very heated on both sides. Many criticize Betacommand's civility, or lack there of, but it's not one sided, nor is this request for Betacommand. Focusing on the bot, this is premature as the deadline is quickly approaching and much of the drama surrounding this bot will fall silent once there are only new uploads being tagged. As I recommended to MBisanz when he asked for my opinion on making his request, this would be better postponed until a month after the deadline, if issues continue past that point. Lara❤Love 06:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carcharoth

I apologise for submitting a rather long statement - I hope that the complexity of the issues and (hopefully) the clarity of presentation will justify the length.

My position is that User:Betacommand's non-free image work with User:BetacommandBot performs a much needed role of helping the en-Wikipedia community comply with the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy. It is, however, only a very small part of the work needed. It acts as one of several initial barriers (such as using the right copyright tag) that people have to overcome if they want to use non-free images, and those barriers are right and proper for a free-content encyclopedia. Much more work is needed though to bring en-Wikipedia's non-free images into line with our Exemption Doctrine Policy (our non-free content criteria), particularly as most of these criteria can only be assessed by humans, not bots. To that end, using my experience from several months of working in the area of non-free image policy (see the policy talk page and its archives), I have been working on, and trying to get others to help with, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance. I would appreciate it if people could take the time to read that and comment on it.

In other words, I too support the principle of the work BetacommandBot (or its newly created clone User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot) does on non-free images. I have, however, consistently criticised the way in which this work has been done, and made criticisms on other matters, and supported criticisms made by others when I thought they were valid. This has been difficult for several reasons: (1) Some people attack Betacommand and his work due to failure to understand our policy - this creates a lot of background noise. (2) Some people uncritically support Betacommand and his work and attack his critics - this too adds to the background noise. (3) Those that fall between these two extremes are not all saying the same thing at the same time (there is a wide spectrum of opinion and a large number of issues). This results in long, heated discussions, and very little progress. An added distraction is Betacommand's incivility in response to criticism, and his disruption in other areas, which, when it involves his bot, proves (or did prove) difficult to separate from his non-free image work.

Several other points I would like the committee to consider:

  • Distraction from needed work and discussion on non-free images. There are many issues concerning non-free images that need to be discussed and worked on, and the constant discussions around Betacommand and his bot and the other issues involving Betacommand, distract from this other work (and the distractions include this arbitration request and any case if it opens). I've given three examples here.
  • Behaviour issues. There has been consistent uncritical support of Betacommand with incivil attacks on those who criticise him or his work. This is not an exhaustive list, but of the people named (so far) as parties to this case, and if the case is accepted, I would present evidence concerning: the behaviour of User:Hammersoft and User:Laralove when commenting on issues; the disputes between Betacommand and User:MickMacNee; and the general reactions to and attacks on MickMacNee, User:Bellwether BC and BrownHairedGirl.
  • Bot approval policy issues. The process by which User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot was approved remains a matter of concern to me. The bot request page at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Non-Free Content Compliance Bot was created and speedily approved within two minutes. Betacommand has commented here: "Prior discussion with all involved parties, from me, BAG, and the Bcrat were conducted. Bot clones are normally processed fairly quickly. this was forced through to avoid trolls." - although at least one member of the bot approval group has said the request should not have been speedily approved, I think this 'forcing something through to avoid trolls' sets an incredibly bad precedent.
  • Comments by others. Of the comments and statements made by others so far, I would like to draw attention to those made by User:BrownHairedGirl (see BHG's statement on her talk page here) and User:MBisanz's statement above, and the points raised by Franamax below.

Overall, my position remains that which I have been taking in the last few days (when the idea of an arbitration case has been floating around): not to file a request or open a case at this point in time. I think the community should instead focus its efforts on ensuring that by 23 March 2008 en-Wikipedia is at least WP:NFCC#10c compliant (sorry for the jargon there) as far as bot scanning goes (of course, many images will still not be NFCC#10c compliant, as the bot does not detect the presence of a rationale, but only the absence of one of the requirements of a rationale - namely the name of the article the image is used in). The community should also be focusing its efforts on what the deadline means (will the image deletion policy need changing?) and what to do after the deadline (how to continue to ensure compliance of non-free images with policy).

Only if the behaviour issues continue after these issues have been dealt with, or only if the behaviour issues impede discussion and resolution of these issues, will an arbitration case be needed. As can be seen above, I think that the behaviour issues and the resulting community furore are coming close to impeding work on these issues, but I think that progress is still slowly being made. In addition, I would urge people reading this to help out with current work on non-free images, and to make productive contributions to discussions on how to move forward after the 23 March 2008 deadline. Carcharoth (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - Laralove says: "much of the drama surrounding this bot will fall silent once there are only new uploads being tagged". In fact, that stage has already been reached. Betacommand finished that about a week ago now, I think, and if you look at User:MiszaBot/Trackers/CAT:DFUI (and in particular the history of it, such as here and here and here), the backlogs of thousands and thousands of tagged images (many of them the older 'legacy' ones) have been cleared (either fixed or deleted). You could say the ongoing discussions resulted from the large tagging runs in the first few months of this year, but I agree, once the drama subsides, things will be better. There is still the proposed BetacommandBot phase 4 - for details of these phases, see here (Betacommand may be able to provide a more up-to-date link - the latest I heard is that he plans to start this phase in April) - it would be good to avoid drama around implementation of that phase of operations. In addition though, I am concerned that there will be a big push from certain quarters, after the WMF deadline passes on 23 March 2008, to change the deletion criteria and get rid of a lot of non-free images that some people don't think should be on Wikipedia. Those people are perfectly entitled to do that, but I don't want to see such changes strong-armed through under the banner of "enforcing the WMF resolution", at least not without proper community discussion. And that means a long, careful discussion over several weeks, with a clear way to end the discussion and move forward. Even though people say this is no longer possible give the size of Wikipedia, I don't think people or bots should be forcing the pace on anything as sensitive as this, especially given the lessons of what happened over the past year. It is still unclear how much damage the implementation of this policy has done to the community. Carcharoth (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by happily uninvolved Franamax

In response to FT2's request for specifics, here is what I see festering in the endless combative threads. NOTE that I do not claim any items below to be a fact. From my viewpoint, they are areas of concern which may need to be explored. This list also seems somewhat skewed against BC and does not reflect all the provocative actions against BC, certainly there have been questionable actions all round.

General

  • The need to comply with non-free image policy should be uncontroversial. What has caused problems is the method used to achieve the goal.
  • Supporters and opposers of BC have lined up on opposing sides and overwhelm any discussion thread with noise, such that desirable changes are not achieved. Incivility and rash actions seem to be escalating.
  • The role of BAG, 'crats and the community in overseeing bot tasks and disposition of complaints and suggestions seems unclear.

Details

  • BC seems unresponsive to suggestions on improving BCB to help with non-free compliance, as opposed to simply tagging for deletion based on an arbitrary set of bot rules.
  • BCB is impossible to block. BCB runs a bundle of tasks using non-public code. It is not clear whether the tasks can be separated. Individual blocks of BCB for improper actions are swiftly overturned because BCB is "mission-critical".
  • BC runs unauthorized tasks using BCB.
  • BC insufficiently defines whether requested BCB tasks have community consensus.
  • BC apparently refuses to repair BCB damage, in contravention of bot policy.
  • BC is deeply incivil.
  • BCB clone to address non-free images:
    • Improper language in bot approval request.
    • Policy violation allowing multiple operators of the same account.
    • Improper bot approval process - speedy approval without wait for community input, speedy closing, improper protection.
    • Undesirable naming of bot.
    • Perception of separate bot not owned by BC, when BC still completely controls the bot code.
  • Improper conduct:
    • Block of MMN by partial/involved admin. "Page ban" of MMN by same admin.
    • BC uses rollback against MMN in possible stalking/provocation.
    • Opponents of BC raise issues repeatedly in every forum available.
    • Supporters of BC dismiss all discussion as attacks on BC not worthy of consideration.
  • Lack of definition of bot task approval:
    • BAG approves on a technical basis only. No clear process by which the community decides whether that task itself should be handled by a bot.
    • Lack of clarity on the official process to register dissatisfaction with bot operation and get the operation improved - no process to do this other than "ask the botop".
    • General lack of community oversight of bots. Where do appeals go? When do operations get reviewed? etc.

ArbCom needs to decide if some of these issues are within their remit. Arbcom may have a further interest in ensuring that there is a structured and civil process by which the various issues may be resolved, without prejudice to any editors. Franamax (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify here that BC=BetaCommand, BCB=BetaCommandBot, MMN=MickMacNee and I have specifically not provided any supporting diffs. I believe that the parties to this case will provide evidence in their own statements relevant to the points I have noted; to the extent that they collectively do not, AC should regard my statement as unreliable. My optimal outcome would be that every one of the points I've raised above will be generally agreed to be false, by all concerned. However, if the Committee wishes more specifics, I will undertake to provide them. Franamax (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by relatively uninvolved Orderinchaos

I believe that Crotalus horridus's characterisation of the situation above, in its succinct form, is probably the most accurate summary of the issues which in my view ArbCom needs to consider. If we did not release our edits under the GFDL we would be in breach of all sorts of policies. However, this bot is effectively closed source, and there is no abiding security or other reason for it to be. Secondly, BetacommandBot's occasional rogue behaviour and performance of unauthorised tasks such as mass-deletion of redlink categories (claimed as "CfD work" although the categories had never been to CfD) and the Main Page fiasco, together with its owner's refusal to communicate in a civil and reasonable manner on many occasions, has resulted in a considerable loss of community faith in the bot's operations. An additional but minor point is the fact that only after considerable negotiations by a highly respected Wikipedian did BC finally offer to undo some of the recent damage. Humans can't keep up with bots, which can damage the encyclopaedia at a far greater rate than any human ever could - even with the best of intentions of their owners.

I also think Franamax immediately above has raised some valid concerns relating to the Bot Approvals Group, who recently undertook a very controversial operation in open defiance of consensus which has created a bot with a seemingly official name which, although operated by other users, essentially extends the reach of the problem. Furthermore, the hostility shown by some members of the group, and their apparent indifference to community disquiet on the issue (to the point of out-of-process protections and threats to block) are of great concern.

Essentially consensus and efficiency (for want of a better word) have gone head-to-head, and it seems that consensus, a core Wikipedia policy, has lost. It's not even a case of consensus failing - consensus was pretty much on target, but got steamrolled over by a dedicated group who really do appear to believe they are helping the encyclopaedia by doing so. We are losing editors because of this mess. The debate comes up almost every day at AN/I and refuses to go away, it's polarising the active community there into two opposite camps who are pretty much permanently incivil towards each other to the point where policy is regularly getting broken in their battles and attempts to control each other's communications on the subject, and I can only see it getting worse if ArbCom do not intervene. I disagree that the debate will "fall silent" in a couple of weeks, as the NFCC issue is only one of several major incidents related to this situation. Orderinchaos 09:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bellwether BC

First, I must say that I find this RfAr to be very premature, and have stated as much on the ANI/B page. BCBot has some important functions he needs to perform in advance of 23 March, and allowing him to finish these functions would have also cooled down the tempers of all parties on all sides. With that said, as succinctly as possible, my view of the issue is this:

  1. Betacommand is chronically incivil. There are many diffs scattered throughout this request showing this, but just in the past couple of days, he's called BrownHairedGirl a "dumbass" and a "dick" and called her good-faith actions "bullshit." This is not out-of-character at all for BC, from my previous interactions/observations of him. I've been accused of various imaginary transgressions by both BC and his supporters.
  2. Betacommand's anger sometimes spills over into retaliation. (See the diffs regarding MickMacNamee above.)
  3. Betacommand's detractors sometimes allow their anger to morph into a "hang 'im high!" mentality that forces Betacommand and his supporters into even more of a "bunker mentality." I've tried to refrain from this, and stick to a "Betacommand needs to be far more civil" line, but I don't know for certain that I've always succeeded.
  4. There is trolling of Betacommand, but it's not by any of the parties to this case. It's more of the "YOU'RE A !@#$@#! JACKASS FOR TAGGING MY PICTURE OF MY GIRLFRIEND!!!! I @#!#$$#@! HATE YOU!!!!!" type, and not actually users who have a real, policy-based issue with him.
  5. Betacommand takes these trolling comments far too personally (the users who leave them are most likely <15 years old and bored), allowing it to color and affect the way he deals with the legitimate criticism that comes his way.
  6. Betacommand refuses to open the code to his bot, keeping anyone with a genuine interest in improving its function from doing so. This (as I see it, anyway) flies in the face of everything that WP is about.

Well, that's my view of the situation. I think #1, #2, and #6 are the actionable points, in my opinion, and thus (even though it's not the timetable I would have chosen) this case should be accepted.

  • For the record, I strongly agree with adding ST47 to the case. His misuse of tools is being snowed under at AN/I by his supporters, and should be at least addressed in any case involving BC. Bellwether BC 15:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Brief Reply to FT2's Analysis

With all due respect, claiming that all (or even a majority of) BC's incivility is due to attacks on him is, well, bunk. He's been chronically incivil to many users who have never posted anything resembling "attacks" on his page. BHGirl blocked him for demonstrable intransigence to a legitimate request to clean up a mess he had made, and he called her a "dick" and a "dumbass" among other pleasantries. Those insults are but the tip of the iceberg. If Giano is going to be put on "civility patrol", then perhaps something similar could result from this arbcom for Betacommand, but something must be done. Apathetic responses have been tried. They don't work. Action needs to be taken sooner rather than later. I don't advocate a lengthy (or any) block, but an "on-the-record" very firm reminder that being trolled does not excuse personal attacks and incivility is in order, in my view. Bellwether BC 19:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fair observation. Bear in mind, I've warned even obviously irredeemable virulent warriors more than once, on their way to a community ban, as well as drawing a firm line on conduct and using tools. If Betacommand's manner is fostered in large part by stress and short fuse generally (which is possible), and that stress is in turn going to heavily diminish imminently (which seems possible), then that is the reason I would like to hold off a bit to see how it goes. But to avoid doubt, as I have said many times, ultimately incivility norms apply to all, not just some, and chances (when given and used properly) should be given in anticipation of actual visible effort and change, not interminably. Just to clarify the thinking. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's very troubling to me that not only do two arbitrators oppose this request, but three simply are abdicating to the "community" a responsibility that we, as a community, have already tried and failed to resolve. Bellwether BC 11:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if it is not resolved, and remains a problem, then acceptance would be my choice. But you need to review RFAR a bit to realize that in most cases where actual communal discussion is (or seems to be) taking place, we (often don't/almost never) derail it. That's more usually for example, when RFC or mediation's still ongoing, or mentorship is occurring. But it can be for any kind of communal approach. Arbitration is the last resort, for matters that will not wait, or matters that the community cannot resolve. Plainly, neither of those are the case at this time (March 14). That may or may not change shortly, depending on circumstances. hence not accepting, not declining, but "on hold" watching progress of communal discussion. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MickMacNee's Response to FT2
  • I would like some clarification as to what these community actions to resolve the issue apparently are, because all I see is the creation of a separate bot by people friendly to betacommand in order to absolve him of any responsibility of explaining or communicating about the bot, or even worse, be accountable for its failings. I would also like some clarification of this continued idea that BCB for NFC10c is protecting WP from being sued, in his own words and other, he is doing 'good work' or essential work. With regards to the NFCC resolution, bcb 'enforces' a ridiculously small part of the policy, so small as to be redundant, considering it is something a human can check during the necessary human assessment of every fair use claimed image for the 95% of the policy bcb cannot check. The allowance of the wars with bcb has only cemented this idea in certain supporters eyes, who clearly don't understand the policy or the bot. Finally, I am amazed given the named participants above that this issue is still being attributed to just angry newbies who don't understand why their images have been tagged. It is not, bcb and his bot, and the wider compliance process he is a part of (and part of this is he must accept that as bcb owner that he is a part of a system, not a just lone editor) can be massively improved, but not if he remains an intransigent cog in the system, given massive leeway because he can't differentiate between angry repsonses from newbies and feedback from other editors. MickMacNee (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mick, without prejudice you were already told by others that you were over advocating. The exact words were: "Enough. This has been going on long enough. Put the stick down, and leave" [32]. Others have not shown great support either on that page. Yes these are concerns. No we don't over react to things that may well be changing.
It would be fairer if you quoted that particular users entire contribution to that page regarding myself. And in the same veign, I was not the only person making the same complaints about that bot approval, I was merely the first responder. MickMacNee (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a community, Wikipedia traditionally seeks to change things in a way that keeps positive contributions, as well as remove negative ones. The issue is significantly focussed upon Betacommand responding to imagery tagging complaints. Therefore if he is put in a position where that is no longer happening, it will significantly help the issue, perhaps allowing the rest to be resolved by lesser means. That is not merely "his friends do it for him", as you suggest, because the essence of it is, 1/ the "friends" in this case are each users with good histories of avoiding such confrontational styles in messages they leave, and 2/ the bulk of the upset comes from user complaints at a task that will be run, regardless, by somebody, for WMF policy reasons.
In the same vein, it is well known that our policy is stricter than necessary for law, and as a WMF project (Wikipedia) and a community we have accepted that. It has wide buy-in. If your objection is at a policy level then this is the wrong venue for it. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:38, 14 March
Once again you are merely trying to state this issue is about complaints about the bot tagging based from mis-informed newbies. It is not, look a bit deeper at the history of the disputes. This new bot brings nothing to the table apart from someone else for the uninfromed newbies to shout at, and to remove collateral damage from blocking the new bot. While useful and welcome, these are certainly not the root cause of many of the issues raised about the bot for nfcc that have been greeted with silence or accusations from betacommand, which will not change because betacommand per his own terms agreed with the new bot's operators with their tacit sympathy as evidenced bv the wording of the approval, still controls the code of the bot. It is even repeated by the new operators and betacommand that all requests for modification will still be directed to him, presumably for the same treatment as 2008 (UTC)MickMacNee (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the sake of repeating myself many many times, my issues were never about the policy, I realy do get tired of saying this after the 100th accusation of personal attacks from betacommand. It was clearly stated on the original now blanked page, a position stuck to by me through all the ensuing discussions until betacommand practically begged to be taken to arbcom to turn it into a user conduct issue. Again, my position is stated in all the previous discussions many times, supported by others. It is not about wanting to subvert the resolution, but I am continually amazed at the ignorance of the people who hold up the resolution as a defence who are evidently completely unaware of the very little legal protection for WP that bcb for nfcc (as a whole, not merely the tiny part 10c which it even can't check fully) actually ensures. He has incidentally met all attempts by others to create bots to enforce the whole policy properly and in a way that helps everybody with indifference at best. MickMacNee (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)previously. MickMacNee (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm shocked you linked to that diff, FT2. That user was clearly wrong-headed in his "I'm surprised your ass hasn't been indefinitely blocked" statement, which you left off. Have you checked out evidence of BC's further intransigence that I posted to the talkpage? If not the diff can be found here. It's quite illuminating. Bellwether BC 15:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out how the Bot Approval Group (which is an open forum allowing others to comment here and there) viewed all this, and noted simply, others have found him to be over-advocating. Right or wrongly, that is the response he got, and you are right, I omitted the part that was not salient and would have been unhelpful to cite, noting simply, the fact that a user (possibly more than one) felt him to be over advocating, and this was generally not helpful. I also noted that not one person commented in the wake of that diff, that it was out of line, or a poor assessment of an editor's contribution to the debate. It instead spoke of a perception there, that MickMacNee is not recognizing when others simply didn't greatly agree with him. That was the perception that the page spoke of, and if Mick's post is by chance bringing the same over-advocacy here, then it is not entirely inappropriate to link the two. There is a difference between presenting a case, and over-advocating a case, and the latter is unhelpful. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FT2, I've commented on the talk page, but one thing I want to point out about this comment from you - "I also noted that not one person commented in the wake of that diff, that it was out of line, or a poor assessment of an editor's contribution to the debate." - This may be because the page in question was protected just over an hour later. I remember reading the comment in question and thinking that it was out of line. In hindsight, I should have warned Compwhizii on his talk page. Thank-you for reminding me about this. I will leave him a note about that now. I would also like to say that there is a difference between over-advocating and clearly presenting a calm and comprehensive statement, and I hope people never feel they cannot discuss things with you for fear of being told they are over-advocating. Carcharoth (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I truly apologize for that statement. The MickMacNee, I'm surprised your ass hasn't been indef blocked yet. was truly unnecessary and unhelpful. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 19:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A decent call, Carcharoth. More generally...
I don't ever close my door, and in turn, my hopes not to give that impression. But in recent cases, arbitration pages have become used as rant pages by some. I don't know where that idea came from, but it's appropriate to end it. These are pages for reasoned concerns, views and reflection, and evidence, not incivility, haranguing, and the worst kinds of personal attacks between users (as has happened in some instances). Turning to MickMacNee, a look at the bot pages, and this page, related to Betacommandbot, gives the impression that in some cases, he has been inclined to say things in this case without more "light", but sometimes with increased "heat", and may not always recognize he's doing it. That is unhelpful conduct by anyone on arbitration pages, and although by far not the worst exemplar, following recent cases I think it worth drawing a line on incipient tendentiousness well before the next major case happens or before it does become a problem. Mick's message was delivered forcefully at BAG, forcefully here, and forcefully at a few other venues. That's enough to inform. RFAR isn't a venue for re-arguing or re-enacting the divisive issues already forumed elsewhere on the wiki. It's a venue for users to make factual and helpful statements summarizing the concerns, views, evidence, and insights that need presenting for an Arbitration case. That's different from a tone which pushes towards (for example) incivility, stridency, point-making, assumption of bad faith, or advocacy. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recognise it, and have been the subject of some pretty tenuous blocks because of it, but I would also hope that arbcom gives serious consideration as to the root cause of escalating advocacy, namely betacommands general conduct, continuing as we speak. I made the points above also in sight of the repetition of what I believe are mis-representations of the issues. It would be helpful if a direct yes or no reply to those views was given, instead of general etiquete points. Percieved misunderstandings of the situation under scrutiny is a central issue for this page. MickMacNee (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support FT2's comment. Tendentious and highly emotional comments are not helpful. It is essential for us to have information given to us to use in a calm and thoughtful manner. This standard needs to be the norm and Committee members and Clerks will reinforce this point as need. FloNight ♣♣♣ 17:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HiDrNick

I've added User:ST47 as a party to this case, who protected Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Non-Free Content Compliance Bot solely to stifle an ongoing discussion on-wiki in contravention of the protection policy and WP:OWN. I hope that in addition to the actions of Betacommand that the committee will examine the actions and practices of the Bot Approvals Group and the use of admin tools in this dispute.

Addendum

diff. I reiterate that I hope the arbiters will accept this case.

Statement by mildly involved User:Philippe

Regardless of the issues with BetacommandBot functionally, the community has shown an inability to resolve this on its own. In addition, there have been examples of shockingly bad judgement and incivility.

Maxim's "topic ban" of User:MickMacNee diverged greatly from established policy. What's worse, it was immediately followed by blocking him for an "unrelated" discussion. Maxim seems unable or unwilling to see the connection between these events. We have clear policies that uninvolved administrators should carry out all blocks.

In addition to this very tangental issue, it has become clear to me that Betacommand's civility issues can not be addressed by the community, because those who point them out are very often told, in effect, that because Betacommand does important work, we'll just have to deal with his civility issues.

The community should not be forced to accept incivility from someone simply because they do good work in other areas.

Finally, after multiple attempts to reform the Bot Approval Group, it appears that we're once again in a position where we need to consider that. It's become increasingly clear that the BAG does not, in fact, listen to community input on non-functional areas (policy, etc) of bot designs. I'm afraid that, all too often, all I can think of is "boys (or girls) and their toys" when dealing with the BAG.

The Arbcom should accept this case - if for no other reason than to review the decisions made by core parties to this case. - Philippe | Talk 17:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Phillippe, do you honestly think I don't see a connection between my topic ban and my block. The grounds on which I blocked seem to be valid, as Mr.Z-man reblocked later. I was involved, too much for many users' liking; it's not like I can get it right each time, can I? The topic ban was more of a cross between a block and IAR. Blocking a user for repeated disruption in a specific area is more punitive than telling the user in question to stay off a certain topic area. (ie I consider the ban a more preventative action than a block, but neither are made to be punitive) Maxim(talk) 19:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute that your block was valid, Maxim - frankly, I'd have probably issued it myself it had been posted to ANI. I just firmly believe you shouldn't have been the one to do it. That, in connection with a seriously questionable invocation of IAR, deserves to be looked at. - Philippe | Talk 21:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John254

Betacommand has an extensive history of bot and script-assisted disruption -- please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand#Use_of_an_automated_tool_to_disrupt_Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FUser_names, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand#Disruption_of_WP:AIV, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand#High-speed_removal_of_external_links, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand#Inappropriate_link_removals, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand#The_link_removal_was_conducted_inappropriately, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand#Unsatisfactory_communication_regarding_link_removals, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand#History_of_poor_judgment. In December 2007, Betacommand inappropriately removed the edit links from thousands of stub templates using AutoWikiBrowser, then refused to reverse the disruption himself, as described in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive346#Betacommand. I personally repaired most of the damage caused to the stub templates by individually reversing each edit with nothing but a rollback script, a task that continued for weeks -- see, for example, [33], [34], and [35]. More recently, Betacommand vandalized MickMacNee's talk page by programming BetacommandBot to post a large number of false notices alleging fair use violations in images that MickMacNee never uploaded, apparently in retaliation for MickMacNee's critiques of Betacommand's behavior -- see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive_1#Edits_by_Betacommand_to_MickMacNee_talkpage. BetacommandBot was recently blocked indefinitely for running the unauthorized task of removing all red-linked categories from articles, which was considered to be disruptive since the categories removed might simply be mispellings of existing categories, as described in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Betacommand#Categories. However, Betacommand refused to reverse the edits himself, as required by Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Bot_accounts, until BetacommandBot was indefinitely blocked again to force compliance with the policy -- please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Betacommand#Block_of_BetacommandBot_reinstated. Other unresolved issues with Betacommand's conduct include his chronic incivility, particularly his frequent use of crude scatological language in responding to concerns regarding his behavior -- see, for example, [36], [37], [38], [39], and [40]. Moreover, it is apparent from the fact that the community has not reached a consensus to ban Betacommand, despite his egregious and protracted disruption, that the community cannot or will not resolve this issue itself, and that the matter necessarily requires consideration by the Arbitration Committee. I therefore urge that this case be accepted. Thank you. John254 19:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem apparent from a review of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand is that many members of the community disagree with the method of fair use enforcement employed by BetacommandBot, and its successor, the Non-Free Content Compliance Bot. While the necessity of effectively enforcing the non-free content policy and guidelines is conceded, many editors question the efficacy of having a bot request the deletion of every fair use image which lacks text that purports to be a fair use rationale or the name of the article in which the image is used. I believe that high-quality fair use enforcement necessarily requires that human judgment be exercised through the manual review of each image. As this task would be far too large for any individual editor to perform, a bot could be employed for the limited purpose of dividing up images into manageable groups, and assigning them to volunteers. The review of an image would first involve a determination of whether the use of the image could be made acceptable pursuant to the non-free content policy and guidelines. If so, the reviewer would remedy any deficiencies on the image description page, by providing a fair use rationale, etc. If the image use could not be rendered acceptable, the reviewer would request the deletion of the image, even if its description page contained what purported to be a fair use rationale, and all other content necessary to prevent BetacommandBot from marking it for deletion. BetacommandBot's method of fair use enforcement is necessarily both overinclusive and underinclusive, because it marks legitimate fair use images for deletion on the basis of technical quibbling, while simultaneously failing to request the deletion of many unacceptable fair use images, simply because they contain a fair use template, the name of the article in which the image is used, and some text which purports to be a fair use rationale, which the bot is quite unable to comprehend, or evaluate on its merits. While the proper method of fair use enforcement would ordinarily be a question to be resolved by the community, when discussion of this issue has been stifled through the summary removal of blocks on BetacommandBot, which arguably does not enjoy the approval of the community for its continued operation, off-wiki discussion to secure the approval of a fair-use enforcement bot before a public request has even been filed, and the improper protection of a bot request for approval by one of the bot operators himself, then I assert that the intervention of the Arbitration Committee is required to restore conditions under which the community can effectively decide the best method of fair use enforcement without being thwarted by unilateralism. John254 00:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gimmetrow

I recommend Arb not take this case. The community is dealing with the civility issues. Other issues about bot policy and the role of BAG are fuzzy to the community, but they are slowly getting addressed. I think it would be beneficial to keep that discussion going. Gimmetrow 23:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interjection: Analysis of above statements for reference, by FT2

Since the above statements covers a lot of ground, and several issues, I feel it is helpful to arbitrators and perhaps the community to analyze the issues and summarize them, as follows. The issues cited seem to fall into 3 broad groups, covering 9 areas. The listing in this manner should not be taken in any way as a comment on validity. It is merely a way to organize the many issues mentioned:
  • Betacommand issues:
  • 1. Betacommand's handling of communications with uploaders and critics is (per Bellwether) "chronically uncivil". This is described in many terms; ultimately they all come under one heading - "betacommand's personal communications and responses style".
  • 2. Against that Betacommand and the bot do a difficult job that attracts much vitriol, personal attack and misunderstanding from thwarted uploaders. Several people praise the bot for doing the allocated job without error, and the BFA page notes that Betacommand is "very responsive" to genuine bugs.
  • Bot issues:
  • 3. Bot code is closed. Concerns vary from philosophy ("it shouldnt be") to design, hidden bug, and maintenance worries.
  • 4. Bot used for novel (unapproved tasks).
  • 5. Bot does too much in one, is impossible to block, is not made simple for others to modify, has some problematic messages, could cease to be maintained.
  • Bot Approval Group issues:
  • 6. Approval process of bot was seen by some as "wrong" or "forced through". Opposing view: the bot was already approved; only the splitting of its means of operation (crudely: BAG members to operate, BC to maintain, new bot name, brief update of terms of operation for consistency) differs.
  • 7. BAG has made an unusual and perhaps controversial decision - allowing multiple operators, general bot handling is inadequate, allowed a perception BC does not manage the bot, etc (Franamax)
  • 8. Concerns that BAG does not listen to community input on non-functional aspects of bot design, such as policy. (As part of this, perhaps, ST47 is stated to have acted unhelpfully or excessively, or not adequately considered views presented.)
  • 9. Concerns whether there has been adequate communal discussion of related issues, such as non-free image handling.
FT2 (Talk | email) 00:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from MickMackNee

I waited to see what others would say, partly through interest, partly because of being blocked for daring to question betacommand anyway, and I see from the above comments I have been vindicated. It is obvious from the above evidence that I was not carrying out a campaign against betacommand. My evidence against betacommand is more than covered above, if arbcom don't choose to proceed on the basis of the above diffs, then frankly they are not worth the web page they written on. It is laughable that the creation of a separate but entirely subordinate bot is being heralded as a start to solve all the problems, that pathetic attitude is merely indicative of the entire problem, betacommand is untouchable on wikpedia, his hobby programming is more important than any other policy, and it is frankly not worth questioning any aspect of his existence, its pointless, editors must accept he is untouchable, lest you be vandalised or banned for the most ridiculous of reasons, or, as have some very experienced yet completely pissed off admins have already done, leave. A total joke. MickMacNee (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by the completely uninvolved RogueNinja

So far, I have been completely and utterly uninvolved. I have uploaded no images to wikipedia, nor have I weighed in on the many discussions the community has had about BCBot.

What I see is:

  • BCBot's task is critical to wikipedia.
  • The images MUST be tagged, as per the wikipedia foundation
  • BCBot draws alot of complaints and criticism to betacommand.
  • Betacommand does not always (in fact, usually) reply to these complaints civilly.
  • I would be amazed if he did. It would take the patience and self-control of a monk to keep his WP:COOL with the amount of complaning he has to deal with
  • People often make absurd demands of betacommand, such as demanding that he release his code, or saying he should be writing image rationales instead of tagging them.
  • Yes, these are absurd demands.
  • BCBot's messages could use some work.
  • There is really no reason for the bot messages to be anything but the essence of kindess.

RogueNinjatalk 22:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Splash

It is repeatedly stated above that it's ok for Betacommand to be ruthlessly uncivil whenever someone complains to him because he gets so many complaints. That's untrue on its face. It is not ok to be rude and uncommunicative 'just in case' someone is winding you up or because the person before me was. The notion that 'established' or 'whatevered' users should be given leeway to do this (implicit even in FT2's statements) as a kind of 'thank you' is widely deprecated by the community, and should be given short shrift whenever it is implied.

The Bot Approvals Group would do well to remember that it found itself on a course to deletion not so long ago, and that red-hot-poker of a warning shot should not be overlooked. You are not a law unto yourselves; you must listen and be seen to be listening. Splash - tk 23:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A minor correction. You will find nowhere, that I have condoned uncivil conduct. Part of Arbitration is looking with more insight at an issue. The observation that a change may well render an entire issue moot, or a large but unknown portion, and that this may potentially happen almost before a case can get underway, is in my judgement, worth waiting for. Any sanction would be to protect the project from stress and friction going forward. A change that resolves this, would also address the matter. Whatever feelings may linger, we do not usually issue communal sanctions for matters that essentially are over and seemingly mostly resolved going forward (one main exception: gross breach of trust)... and if they are approaching that stage perhaps via communal actions already, then it is a common thing to wait until the matter becomes clear. You will find many arbitrator's views on many cases, that state "discussion or other steps in progress, wait until we see how it goes". This - however you might feel - is in fact one of them. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With apologies, FT2, I perhaps imprecisely phrased. I was alluding to your sentence "betacommand's civility, which is almost entirely due to being the recipient of, and respondent to, the messages of thwarted uploaders and communication with bot matters", which divests BC of the blame for the content of the edit window when he presses save, in exchange for his bot work. I did not mean that your "await developments" part was implying "await further incivility". Splash - tk 17:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And my apologies too, I see the ambiguity in that, and would rephrase mine too. "betacommand's civility, which to a large extent arises in the context of being the recipient of, and respondent to, the messages of thwarted uploaders and communication with bot matters [and therefore if removed from that context which he is handling problematically, may well significantly diminish or come under control]." (diff). Apologies in turn for seeming to write a post that put the blame for his edits on others, and accept if willing, my correction, which I'll edit in. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BC's chronic incivility has been tolerated and condoned for a long time. I'm quite sure he'll be "nice" during this case. Then he'll revert to the mean, and round and round we'll go. If you can look at the diffs provided across this case and conclude that his incivility is not a problem that needs dealt with now, well, I don't know what to say to you. Incivility litters BC's posts at every turn. Bellwether BC 02:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Locke Cole

Betacommand is frequently incivil, reacting poorly to legitimate concerns raised by editors (heck, his user talk page is a prime example of this, preemptively claiming some editors are only there to "whine and complain"). He is also unwilling to budge on matters that have consensus, for example, providing an automatic opt-out mechanism for his bots notifications. Despite a clear consensus forming at WP:AN/B#Community_proposal that his bot comply with {{bots}} (at least on User_talk pages), he has said he doesn't care what editors say as he won't implement the feature (he has a manual opt-out method that requires his intervention, but he has displayed an unwillingness to add anyone that asks, and is instead imposing his own judgment on other editors). Note also that he posted one of those comments from Betacommand2 (talk · contribs) (seems strange to post from a test account, it took me awhile to track down that diff). Aren't editors required to edit from one account?

I strongly urge the ArbCom to take up this matter, and strongly suggest they leave this open to expansion beyond just Betacommand and his actions (up to and including WP:BAG) as I believe the problem may go beyond just Betacommand. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion removed and added to the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Lucasbfr

My opinion is that BC is tired, and bitter, handling the burden of the task he is trying to achieve. The amount of people either asking legitimate concerns, not bothering to read the messages and complaining (some would say ranting), and/or trolling on his talk page is just unbelievable. I am not even talking the about 10 times (last time I counted) the bot was blocked for dubious reasons by administrators. The amount of stress this must cause results on his, well, inappropriate behavior (personally I would have left the project long ago under such circumstances, and probably locked the door of the asylum behind me).

That being said I have seen that BC and the BAG are now trying to address this issue by splitting NFC tagging on a separate bot, run by fresh people who could answer complaints with a cooler head. This should relieve BC from a part of his everyday hotline task, and would allow the community to address the other problems with BCBot more efficiently (eg., the non approved tasks). I don't think this RFArb is warranted at that time. Let the split be done, and see if things improve or not (I am still puzzled by the behavior of some people, as if they did want status quo in order to let things rot).

I am not saying BC's behaviour is OK, but it is understandable in such circumstances. Get in the middle of a lynching crowd that see you as the Antichrist and see if you don't get annoyed after almost a year. -- lucasbfr talk 23:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I did not list myself as a party, but I would be happy to oblige if need be.

Statement by slightly-involved x42bn6

There is a sad amount of petty bickering by both "sides" that sometimes descends to the childish level. One example is Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Recent MfD where User:MickMacNee and Betacommand 6RRed (was it 6? I can't remember) over whether or not to put a notice of a closed MfD debate on WP:AN/B. MickMacNee managed to avoid answering my questions altogether on why he thought the notice should stay up but Betacommand did not help at all by putting in crude comments such as, "its MickMacNee's pet attack page". He did, however, seem to stop after I told him he was not helping at all so I do think that he is fully unreasonable, just angry. But that is one example where Betacommand was hounded after due to civility issues. While there is no excuse for being uncivil, one has to remember that Betacommand has been a target of spite due to his work and I cannot imagine how he must feel - it seems that the whole world is against him (see his talk page archives) and that is a difficult thought.

I think there are concerns about whether or not Betacommand has sufficient temperament or patience to deal with proposals or criticism and I do believe he has because he deals with bug reports very well and although it seems difficult he can be responsive to questions such as his plans for his bots.

I must object to his code being released, however. The bot is part of Wikipedia, not the code, and it may not even be possible to release the code if Betacommand has reused parts of other peoples' code in it and that permission does not allow him to release it, for example.

That said, I feel Arbitration is slightly premature as I feel there is progress being made. I do hope, however, that several people within this issue would stand back and take a deep breath every once in a while. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by slightly-involved Ned Scott

This seems to almost be more an issue about how the community develops impressions of some situations. There are some more direct and individual behavior interactions that could be looked at, but I think the major issue here is a general one. I think that, unfairly Betacommand has become a bad guy in many people's eyes, but I'm not sure an arbcom case can fix that. BCB has had so many different tasks that people are likely to group unrelated concerns, and make judgments based on that as well. The recent idea to put some of BCB's task to a bot ran by more than one editor seems to be a good way to avoid some of the misconceptions people had when they only had one user to focus on.

So while there are specific issues being raised here, I think they basically stem from this general misconception that some of the community has, and that should be considered. I hope we can find a way to overcome that misconception, and if arbcom thinks it can help, then that would be great. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lar

Wow, lots of opinions. I just popped in to say a few things:

  1. that I do in fact have a snapshot (point in time) copy of the code used to do image tagging, but not the code used for other things. I can answer questions about it as needed but it is not to be released to others without Betacommand's express permission. He has indicated to me he has taken other measures to safeguard/archive the code in case he's hit by a bus/truck/lorry...
  2. that BCBot does a job that badly needs doing in this area, no other bot has stepped up to do, and that we are under time pressure to get done...
  3. and that in my view, despite all the uproar, progress on process improvement is being made. I'm not sure an ArbCom case is needed, although if all parties took on board what all the other parties were saying perhaps there would be more common ground than there currently is.

Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 06:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved User:AKAF

I think that it is important that the Arbcom take this case because the community has lost confidence in the BAG. Betacommand is the operator of an especially active bot account, but is otherwise not interesting except as an example. I do not address the civility problems of Betacommand or the applicability of the Betacommandbot task 4 to NFCC10c. I would encourage the Arbcom to take this case to examine two areas of interest:

  1. The role of the BAG and the level of care which is taken in approving bot actions
  2. The responsibilities of bot operators

What is Betacommandbot? User:Betacommandbot is an account on which a collection of wildly varying and unrelated scripts are run by user User:Betacommand. These include at least 11 approved tasks: 1a-d, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; which range from placing article assessment templates, spam lists, moving images from Wikipedia to commons and NFCC10c compliance checking. Due to the wide variety of tasks which are approved for this bot, it is very difficult for a user to tell whether an action by Betacommandbot is unapproved, or merely an unexpected extension of an approved task. I'll not waste your time at this point with diffs, but suffice to say that despite the breadth of its approved tasks, Betacommandbot is regularly caught running unapproved tasks. In addition, Betacommandbot is regularly caught modifying thousands of pages in a fashion which its operator later attributes to a bug. The number of "unexpected edits" which Betacommandbot generates in this way is at least in the tens of thousands.

Despite the large amount of undeniably good work which has been performed by Betacommandbot, the complete codebase of Betacommandbot is in constant major flux. It is the combination of this code flux and the rather lax attitude of the BAG to Betacommandbot's tasks which, in my opinion, is responsible for the root of the community's problems with Betacommandbot. I think that Betacommand's refusal to provide the source to Betacommandbot (except for the single task (of 11 approved) noted by Lar above), is rooted in the fact that "Betacommandbot" mostly consists of throw-away simple scripts which remain untested and probably mostly no longer exist. Betacommand's insistence to the contrary, it seems unlikely that such disparate tasks actually require a monolithic code.

What I would like to see from this RFAr:

  1. A statement from Arbcom about the role of the BAG.
  2. A statement from Arbcom about the definition of a single bot.
  3. A statement from Arbcom as to the appropriate action for the BAG in the case that a bot operator is plagued by bugs and/or changing bot definitions.

I think that this is necessary since the BAG does not currently appear to concern itself with anything except the technical feasibility of "proof of principle" bots. The BAG has, as far as I can tell, been completely inactive with respect to the various complaints about Betacommandbot. AKAF (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stifle

I would urge acceptance (with regret) because recent bouts of incivility by Betacommand go well beyond the justification or excuse that the bot is providing a valuable service. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 15:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arthur Rubin

I see several problems with Betacommand and Betacommandbot....

  1. Betacommand has been unCIVIL. I admit there's provocation, but any other editor, even Jimbo, would be blocked for such activity.
  2. Betacommandbot has been performing unauthorized actions. (There's no question about that. Because the bot has been authorized to do so many different things, it's sometimes unclear which actions are unauthorized, but using a bot to intentionally spam a user's talk page was clearly not approved by the BAG.)
  3. Betacommand doesn't provide documentation as to what he thinks the bot does, so it's difficult to tell whether an action not covered by the bot justification is intentional.
  4. When the bot does something clearly wrong, he doesn't fix it until after Betacommandbot is blocked. (BrownHairedGirl's most recent action makes that clear. Betacommand was blocked for emptying categories without CFD authorization. He did stop shortly (1-1/2 minutes) before being blocked, but never said that he wouldn't run that function of the bot again, until after BHG blocked him, after which he finally started reverting that run of the function. No one, except possibly Betacommand, knows how many times that unauthorized function was done.

This is not a content dispute, but a dispute as to whether Betacommand should be banned (or some lesser remedy) for incivility, and as to how the bot should be restricted to follow the authorized functions.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by slightly involved kaypoh

There is a huge mess with many problems. Betacommand will not fix his bot and the community cannot deal with this. ArbCom, please accept and clarify what is "conduct issue" that you will look into and what is "content issue" that you will not look into.

Newyorkbrad, you say "contributors who have dedicated volunteer time to locating and uploading an image to accompany an article are often frustrated or offended to receive a notice that they have violated our intellectual-property policy or, worse, when their images are deleted". Because it looks like it is OK for Betacommand and other people who tag/delete images to violate WP:BITE, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and other policies. Yes, image work is important, but Betacommand is doing it the wrong way and violates so many policies.

--Kaypoh (talk) 08:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BrownHairedGirl

With regret, I urge Arbcom to take on this case, to examine at least some of these three related issues, which I list in descending order of priority:

  1. the conduct of Betacommand, and the suitability of Betacommand as a bot operator
  2. the operation of the Bot Approvals Group
  3. the operation and supervision of the non-free-image-tagging process

I have some serious criticisms to make of Betacommand (BC), but I first want to stress that I have considerable sympathy for the situation in which BC finds himself, at the receiving end of a barrage of unjustified abuse from editors who object to image tagging. I have written a longer commentary on the situation, but the underlying problem is that the image-tagging process has been badly designed and badly handled. It appears to have been designed primarily as a technical task, with far too little provision for the huge social impact of attaching deletion warnings to hundreds of thousands of images, such as the ability of the bot operator to withstand the inevitable abuse, and the lack of any visible mechanism to extract from the torrent of reactions any aspects of the process which might benefit from tweaking. The process has also been overly dependent on BC, with several adverse consequences.

The unpleasantness of the attacks on BC has unsurprisingly led to some well-intentioned editors setting themselves up as his protectors, fending off all criticism. Unfortunately, while there have been some perma-critics of BC, some of the defenders also appear to be defending BC and BCbot regardless of anything he does, which has impeded efforts to resolve any problems which occur.

The problems which should be considered include:

  1. Chronic incivility from Betacommand
  2. Running bots for unauthorised tasks
  3. Inadequate documentation of the bots operations
  4. Failure to undo problems caused by his bot until he was blocked
  5. Using his bot to attack another editor
  6. The failure of the Bot Approvals Group to take action in case of breaches

The attacks on BC neither excuse nor justify this behaviour. In any other bot editor, this sort of behaviour would long ago have led to an escalating series of blocks, and certainly to the removal of his bot flag. Now that the main task of tagging the backlog of non-free images is complete, it is time for BCbot to be stood down from NFCC image-tagging, and for BC to concentrate on programming an NFCC bot for others to use. So far as I am aware, all BCbot's other tasks are either duplicates of the functions of other bots or are non-critical. Given the ongoing problems with his bot, the bot flag should be withdrawn from BCbot, unless there is a significant improvement both in the conduct of Betacommand and the operation of his bot.

Many of the issues have been well-documented in other submissions, so I will expand only on one aspect of it this stage (more detailed evidence if case accepted).

Unauthorised tasks

The problems here are long-standing, but I will focus on one case: categories. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/BetacommandBot shows that BCbot is authorised for "Removing or renaming categories per the decisions of WP:CFD". That is an exact quote from the text at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot#Approval status of BetacommandBot as of April 2007.

That's very precise: "per the decisions of WP:CFD". Unfortunately, BC set the bot to work removing redlinked categories, and when challenged said that this was part of that task (see User_talk:Betacommand/20080301#Removal_of_redlinked_categories).

Leave aside for now the question of whether this was a good idea (I think it's not). The deletion were nothing to do with WP:CFD, yet BC repeatedly claimed that it was authorised. We have two possibilities here: either BC ignores his bot's task limits, or he doesn't understand them, and neither is acceptable in the operator of a bot, particularly one running at such speed on the toolserver. BC claimed that done this before without complaint, but failed to offer any evidence of that.

It doesn't stop there. Having used the bot to made some 2,500 unauthorised edits, BC ignored repeated calls from many editors to revert the damage, leaving others to do so manually. The rollback happened only after I blocked BCbot when it resumed work on a different task, without an effort being made BC to repair the damage as required by WP:BOT, nor any offer to do so. BC now claims that this was a bad block because I was in a "content dispute" with him[41], and which seems crazy: if blocking a bot which fails to revert unauthorised edits is a "content dispute", then no-one can stop such a bot (because any admin who objects to the unauthorised edits would be labelled as "involved").

I have no previous history of dispute with BC, and first engaged him over the removal of redlinked categories. From that episode, it appears to BC accepts no restraints on the use of his bot, and the Bot Approvals Group seems uninterested in taking action about the breaches, and sees itself purely a technical assessment mechanism.

Meanwhile, the community is deadlocked between the permacritics of BC/BCbot and the die-hard defenders of the bot ... with the result that no resolution is possible of the genuine problems which do occur, unless arbcom sets some parameters, either by directly placing restraints on BC and BCbot (such as requiring logging and documentation of tasks and setting standards for addressing problems) or by requiring the Bot Approvals Group to proactively enforce WP:BOT and to work with BC to improve the bot's operations.

BCbot performs a huge number of edits, which inevitably magnifies any deficiencies. Unless such a hyperactive bot follows very high standards, the resulting problems are magnified by the sheer scale of the work done, causing massive community disruption. The community has shown itself unable to resolve the problem, and the lengthy threads at WP:ANI/BC are testament to the extent to which a significant chunk of the community which strongly suupports the NFCC process has nonetheless lost confidence in BCbot. Everything else has been tried; only arbcom can resolve this mess. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem with BCbot

I have only just become aware of another unsatisfactory situation: the newly-created User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out.[

It allows editors to out of receiving notices from BCbot, and warns editors in return that opting out removes any right to complain about "deletions, reversions, etc. because you were "not notified" about them".

That's fair enough, but the next bit is not: "You also lose the right to complain about the bots themselves or the issues they raise".

This is an unfair bundling of terms. If an editor opts out of receiving notices about NFCC images, why should they be debarred from objecting if the bot does something which they find problematic in relation to categories or wikiproject tags? Those tasks do not usually involve notifications to individual editors, and I can see no valid reason to link the two, and the ignore-all-communications clause seems to ignore Wikipedia:BOT#Dealing_with_issues.

Attempts to raise this with BC at User talk:Betacommand#Consensus_on_proposal have had the response "Dont like it? tough". That dismissive incivility bodes ill for the arbitrators hopes that the problems can be resolved without arbcom accepting a case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's also informed us that if we don't like it, we can try out our kite-flying abilities. Bellwether BC 05:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it under WP:IAR and WP:CSD#T2. It's not a template, but it does violate policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An update on the situation with the User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out page. The deletion by Arthur Rubin led to a recreation by Betacommand, a restoration of the history by BlackKite, an MfD for this and a similar page (User:Zscout370/Botoptout, which has since been rewritten and moved to Wikipedia:Bots/Opt-out as a proposed policy change), and, finally, a block of User:Arthur Rubin by User:Coren. This led the dispute to rise to the level of two ANI threads, initiated by User:Coren and User:Laralove - see here and here. I've lost track of exactly what is going on here now, but I would ask that User:Arthur Rubin and User:Coren be added to any arbitration case that may be accepted. Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that reversions and incipient edit warring is still taking place at that page. See the page history. I'm going to ask for page protection to be put in place. I'm too involved myself to place the protection, as I'll end up protecting in the m:wrong version. Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not involved in this matter, and I do not wish to become involved, but what would justify this edit summary? AecisBrievenbus 23:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lawrence Cohen

I like Beta a lot since he tends to say it like it is, but the growing disconnects and nastiness here, and the apparent belief that bot operators don't answer to wider community consensus, and only to the obscure BAG need clarifying. The BAG, or any one user, bot operator of the highest value or not, answers to the community. That's just how we do things. At the least the committee should accept so that these specific questions on policy and consensus between the community, bot operators, and the "BAG" can be settled. Lawrence § t/e 06:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ST47

I suppose it's time for me to make a statement, as the request will now certainly be accepted. First, allow me to respond to Nick in regards to my being added to the case. I stand by the protection of that bot approval request, as I am not interested in seeing that forum being swamped by argument about BetacommandBot when not necessary. In my opinion, the initial speedy approval should have stood because it is a clone of an existing bot. The only legitimate concerns (that did not also apply to BetacommandBot) were those about the bot being a role account, and that is why the approval was pushed through. Perceived attempts at disruption and argument-mongering after the closing resulted in the protection of the approval page. It is not standard practice to protect these, but it isn't every day that a BRFA gets that much negative attention.

Now I must address three more things: BetacommandBot, specifically the opt-out arguments and its blocks, the proposed bot, and the attitude of various users throughout this. BetacommandBot performs a necessary task, enforcement of our non-free content policy. No one debates this. People do argue that it performs too many tasks. This is obviously being worked on, with the new bot approval. Some actually argue that since it can't assess every point of WP:NFCC, it shouldn't be allowed to operate at all. I hope the arbitrators can see the fallacy in that argument. People have requested to be opted out, and up until Beta's recent changes, he allowed anyone to request opting out, as long as they had a valid reason (something beyond "it's annoying me"). The recent opt-out system he created has been met with resistance because it tries to circumvent policy or something like that. It's VOLUNTARY. As for the blocks, well, it feels to me that most of the blocks are by admins who really don't understand what the problem is and are so anxious to block such a high-profile bot as this and gain access to the elite club of admins against BCBot that they don't consider the reasons for blocking and they don't attempt to get consensus for a block. There have been blocks of this bot over a single error, where my bot, which is much less well known, has made similar errors without being blocked.

The proposed bot is going to be programmed by beta but operated by the members of BAG. There are complaints about it being a role account, however it has been stated that a log will be kept so people know which operator has run a specific task. Since it is only a clone of an existing bot, it is receiving far too much controversy for something that should have been speedily approved and immediately transitioned to.

Even after endless discussion, many of us, including myself, have become frustrated at users who do not appear to be paying attention to our statements who we feel are wasting our time. We may snap at them, ignore them, or unleash bots against them. Sometimes these are intended as non-disruptive ways to illustrate a point. (That's probably usually the case.) While a little more research and consideration may be desired of the anti-BCBot people, I think it's clear that most of the people listed above as parties have been responsible for brushes with the line of WP:CIVIL. Arbitrators may understand the feeling of frustration when one is trying to volunteer with Wikipedia and is met with resistance, uncivil comments, personal attacks, and in general the immaturity of the community. While there are true newbies who do not understand policy and need to be helped, our ability to do so is being diminished by assaults by those who refuse to understand policy, as demonstrated in the Abu bahali case mentioned by NYB in his comments below. While arbitration will help in this manner, the best solution would most likely be one which is implemented quickly. Now that the Arbitration Committee has agreed to take on this case, I hope they do so in a prompt manner and take into account the feelings I have expressed in this last paragraph along with the policy side of the matter. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/1/1/1)

  • Reject, at least for now. As AGK observes, the community is making progress on its own here. The only areas not being addressed are the history of attacks on Betacommand and the drama-mongering that has been known to take place from time to time when this issue arises, and at this point I don't think there has been a sufficiently clear case presented in that respect. --bainer (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put on hold here, and review (with willingness to extend hold). Discussions in progress. Rationale as follows (see numbered list of issues above): -
Issues (1)(2) Current discussions may resolve issues to do with betacommand's civility, which to a large extent arises in the context of being the recipient of, and respondent to, the messages of thwarted uploaders and communication with bot matters, and therefore if removed from that context which he is handling problematically, may well significantly diminish or come under control. This is a serious problem and well attested but if it's perhaps going to be made moot (BC will only need to discuss with BAG trusted users) then no need to open a case.
Issue (3) Code will be allowed to multiple trusted users on reasonable grounds (to prevent abuse of powerful capabilities) - beyond that arbitration is not an appropriate venue for what are essentially differences of philosophy.
Issue (4) Operation by others will probably take care of most of this, again may be moot. If it does not then I would consider evidence that despite formal attempts to resolve the issue, a bot is persistently running an improper task, or serious bugs have persistently not been fixed.
Issue (5) is a matter for BAG who are our communal experts. If multiple BAG members feel okay (they will see the code), then I personally would trust their view on this.
Issue (6) As with rollback in January, the close was not entirely unreasonable and more discussion is taking place, community seems to be resolving this one, arbitration is not needed.
Issue (7) Decisions like these are reasonable ones. Reasonable novel solution for a troublesome exceptional situation; others may differ, I personally feel comfortable with deeming that BAG's decision to allow, does indeed make sense. Multiple operators is a non-standard action but those involved seem aware of their responsibilities, the suggestions are reasonable and appropriately minimal, and have considered anti-abuse measures such as logging who uses the bot.
Issue (8) If BAG itself is indeed a concern, then I would hope the matter will be raised amicably in a suitable discussion, if possible. I would consider evidence in this area for (eg) possible abuse-type issues, policy clarification and assisting in reconciling issues as a last resort... but not for new policy making if avoidable.
Issue (9) There has presumably been significant discussion by the community at other venues (meta, MWF-instigated), but I can't myself be sure of this. Carcharoth's concern is that polarization of the debate around Betacommand's bot work may have caused other necessary debates to be sidelined. If so, that is a communal concern, probably best addressed by users in the community, not via this committee.
FT2 (Talk | email) 01:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my recusal... My barnstars were mainly awarded for the technical part of the job of Betacommand and his bot. That makes my position with regard to non-free content very clear (at least as an editor — which explains my recusal). It is as strict as my position concerning incivility, especially when it concerns administrators. As clarified by my colleagues here, it is expected from all contributors to understand the role of each other and try to find out ways to work in a better atmosphere. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia aims to be a free encyclopedia, but many images that could be considered essential to explain and illustrate our articles are subject to copyright. Copyright law, by statute since 1979 in the United States and by statute or common law or the equivalent elsewhere in the world, permits limited utilization of copyrighted material where the use constitutes "fair use." Determining what constitutes fair use of a given image in a given context can be a complex question of intellectual property law (I am not expressing any legal opinions in these comments). Partly for potential liability reasons, partly for practical reasons, and partly for philosophical reasons, English Wikipedia has placed strict limits on when fair-use media may be used and requires that certain information be provided in connection with each such use. The body of policy and policy interpretation that has grown up surrounding application of the non-free content criteria (formerly "fair use criteria") is complex and can be particularly opaque to users who are new to Wikipedia or new to the process of uploading images.
The need to control excessive or unauthorized use of non-free images coupled with the complexities of our use criteria create a need for users to act as "image patrollers" who review uploads and call for the improved documentation and/or deletion of images that they believe are being used outside our criteria. This is an essential task and also one of the most thankless in the entire project, because contributors who have dedicated volunteer time to locating and uploading an image to accompany an article are often frustrated or offended to receive a notice that they have violated our intellectual-property policy or, worse, when their images are deleted. The endless disputes over proper interpretation and application of the policies complicate the task still further, as does the fact that there are so many images to be addressed that the notifications must often be provided via bot-delivered templates rather than individually. As I have said in the past, "We struggle with the balance between excess nonfree content on the one hand and sometimes excessively technical nonfree-content-policy enforcement on the other hand and excessive backlash against the volunteers who do the thankless job of policy enforcement on the third hand."
Last year, an image-patrol specialist usernamed Abu badali was brought before the Arbitration Committee because he was perceived as excessively zealous and confrontational in his dealings with image users. In its decision, the committee adopted a principle that I had proposed on the Workshop: "Editors who review images uploaded to Wikipedia and identify those that are missing the necessary information play an important role in safeguarding the free nature of the project and avoiding potential legal exposure. However, image-tagging rules are necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretations, and can be particularly confusing to new editors. Therefore, it is essential that editors performing this valued role should remain civil at all times, avoid biting the newcomers, and respond patiently and accurately to questions from the editors whose images they have challenged." The committee's decision expressed the hope that Abu badali would work with users whose images he challenged in a patient, diplomatic, and collaborative way. Unfortunately, this dedicated user eventually tired of disputes with other editors—whose fault the disputes were is a moot point—and left the project altogether. He was not the first and will not be the last editor who dedicates himself or herself to image work for a time and then wearies of the never-ending and ill-received task and either drops image work as a user of his or her volunteer time or leaves Wikipedia altogether. But we also don't know how many contributors, old and new, weary of insufficiently explicated image deletions and warnings and leave us as well.
This brings us to the issue of Betacommand and Betacommandbot. It is clear that Betacommand is an energetic and dedicated patroller of images and plays a key role in the bot-assisted enforcement of our image policies. He plays, in the words of the Abu badali decision, "an important role in safeguarding the free nature of the project and avoiding potential legal exposure." It is equally clear that Betacommand has, in performing his important tasks, sometimes failed to lived up to the ideal job description for an image patroller: there is a fair body of evidence that he does not quite always "remain civil at all times, avoid biting the newcomers, and respond patiently and accurately to questions from the editors whose images they have challenged." These flaws are especially regrettable in light of the findings in last year's Betacommand ArbCom decision, relating both to Betacommand himself and to his bot, which serves vital functions but often encounters technical issues. A complicating factor is that the same Betacommandbot is often used for non-image-related functions, some of which have been problematic. (I do not address the issue of Betacommand's declining to openly release his bot's source code; whether that should be required strikes me as a policy issue beyond the scope of arbitration.)
I am sure that all of us on the committee would infinitely prefer to be voting to restore +sysop to a Betacommand who had addressed all of the issues raised in the committee's prior decision, rather than considering whether to accept another arbitration case against him, one which raises some issues that appear on their face to have significant substance. And yet, one must recognize and respect the dedication to Wikipedia of a user who, in spite of constant criticism and in spite of the impact that the committee's prior decision must have had upon him, continues to take the lead in image patrolling work day-in and day-out.
I will hold off on voting to accept this case in the hope that progress can be made, per my colleague FT2's posts above, in addressing many of the issues presented. I very much urge that Betacommand—and his critics—will take these points to heart. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot fault this description and opinion at all (And noting that you posted longer than I did.) FT2 (Talk | email) 02:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know there's no prize for the longest post :) I think most of us are adopting the same strategy here, in that we'd prefer the community's efforts to resolve this dispute to continue, and hopefully succeed, but we'll certainly reconsider if the situation changes. --bainer (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, per Bainer; happy to reconsider if the community is unable to deal. James F. (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Given that multiple individuals are acting in a way to ensure that the community cannot deal, I feel that instead we need to accept. James F. (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold over for a few days. The community is making progress but has not yet come to an agreement; if agreement is lacking then I incline to acceptance because of the complex of potentially conflicting policies involved. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Switch to accept. The issues of communication and the way the bot does its work are serious enough to go through, and my judgment is that the community is unlikely to resolve them. This does not mean the 23 March deadline is lifted, nor that non-free media can be left alone. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcut

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



Request for clarification: Mantanmoreland

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

Notifications
[42][43][44][45]

Statement by Jehochman

We have incipient wheel warring and widespread controversy over sock puppetry blocks and tags that were applied to User:Samiharris and User:Mantanmoreland. This needs to stop immediately. Please state clearly whether sock tags and sock blocks may be applied to these accounts, or not. (I believe that there is a community consensus to do so, as established by the discussion on WP:AN, but some uninvolved administrator can make a final determination.) Some users feel that the arbitration case precludes community action. Please answer "yes" or "no" as to whether the community can act by consensus in this matter. Jehochman Talk 13:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has asserted that there was a consensus to community ban. Coren had blocked for sock puppetry, based on a strong consensus demonstrated multiple times that there was blockable sock puppetry. It is possible for a user to be blocked but not banned. We really need to unscrew Wikipedia:Banning policy and Wikipedia:Community sanction because until we agree on what these things mean and how they work, we will continue to suffer unnecessary drama. Jehochman Talk 14:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this request has nothing to do with a community ban. I agree completely that there is no community ban, due to the very high requirement we have for community banning that gives every administrator veto power. Assuming for the sake of argument that the community decides there has been abusive sock puppetry, can an uninvolved administrator tag and block the accounts, or does the arbitration decision preclude that? I am not asking if this is a wise thing to do. I am asking, whether you prohibit it. Jehochman Talk 14:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, if you are going to cite number of votes, please tell us also how many supported the block. Jehochman Talk 14:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment

Sorry for starting this before the case even closed, but the decision was being overtaken by events, potentially bad events. At least we have prevented wheel warring and been able to discuss this disagreement civilly. Thank you to all for that. Jehochman Talk 15:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coren

Indeed, I feel the primary point of contention at this point is whether the ArbCom declined to act on the allegations of sockpuppetry has precluded the community from doing so itself. Some administrators feel that the AC not having decided on a remedy on the allegations of sockpupettry means that they feel they are not warranted, whereas my reading (as the blocking admin) is that the AC left that decision to the community (who has shown very strong and unequivocal consensus). — Coren (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the "vote counters"; I count sufficient unequivocal supports for banning or blocking MM that, were this an RfA, it would pass. Consensus does not mean unanimity. — Coren (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lawrence Cohen

The Committee needs to say point blank if they endorse the ability and right of the community to follow through and make decisions above and beyond, or in place of Committee decisions by consensus. There seems to be a concerted effort on this case by a very, very small minority of long-time users, who seem hell-bent to not allow consensus to stand on this case. Consensus has been established repeatedly now across RFC, RFAR discussions, and AN three times, that Samiharris=Mantanmoreland. Consensus has now formed twice on AN that Mantanmoreland should be blocked--both before he was blocked, and after he was blocked with endorsements. How much more consensus is needed? Notarized statements from all of us, and photocopied drivers licenses mailed to the WMF office in San Fransisco? Does the community have the right to enforce consensus on a three-time caught sockmaster in this case? Lawrence § t/e 13:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Brad's Wikiconstitutional crisis conundrum

This very exact scenario actually came up last month I predicted this very situation here in discussion on this very case, in the archives. I predicted then basically that this scenario would happen if push came to shove. From Brad's own words last month:

Again, we have not discussed this aspect as a committee at all, but to me individually there is a clear difference between deciding not to take an action as an arbitrator, and deciding to affirmatively overrule that action if taken by the community. I would say that if a community ban were imposed on some user, the ArbCom overruled or reduced the ban, and then the next day it were proposed to reimpose it, then a problematic situation would arise. But that is not this case. Personally, I do think this committee's judgment is sufficiently valuable that if we vote that a particular set of remedies is sufficient, it might be in order to give those remedies a reasonable opportunity to work before reopening the discussion. That may be more a matter of community discretion than a fixed rule. The bottom line is there are no precedents on point that I can think of at this late hour; the Archtransit situation last week, which I mention above, is the closest. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We are now inches from this scenario. Is Mantanmoreland with his distinct lack of valuable article edits really so special and important that we will let this level of absurd disruption erupt over him, where this is possibly about to head? Is it that important to not give Bagley and Byrne any satisfaction? Lawrence § t/e 16:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a minor point, I thought I wrote "conundrum" rather than "crisis." Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Lawrence § t/e 17:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doc

Wow, talk about beggering the question. I'm actually neutral on the facts/evidence, but whether there is a community consensus is disputed. There is significant objection from some experienced admins. There's a bunch of people that are saying that evidence that didn't compel arbcom is compelling. Well, obviously it isn't, or you'd have been compelled. When the community don't find something blatantly obvious, we send it to arbcom - that's the community's chosen mechanism for dealing with it. And arbcom decided what, if anything, to do. In this case, you decided to do nothing. Whilst that may be regrettable to some (perhaps even to me), that's where it is. We settle incessant debates by sending them to arbcom - that's *final* step in dispute resolution and the alternative to endless argument or wheel warring. Any other way lies chaos, "votes for banning" and lynch-law. In another case, if the mob don't like an arbcom decision, can they take a vote to overturn it? Any community discussion is not the whole community, and has the potential to be influenced by good organisation and loud shouting (it may not be thoughtful, and may not be representative), I contend that the 15 thoughtful people elected after careful consideration, whilst they may be wrong, are far more likely to represent the voice and sanity of the community than a AN thread. Arbitration may not be the final word "for ever and ever amen", but it needs to have some degree of finality if it is really to function as the last part of the deletion process. What's the alternative?

Statement by Theresa Knott | The otter sank

I Pretty much agree with everything Doc says but would like to add that our standards for a community ban has always been that once blocked no admin was willing to unblock. In this case the user was blocked before the ban discussion had finished yet apperently that was merely a block not the ban itself. Then accusations of wheel warring fly once Doc undoes this block. I'm sorry but that isn't on. If someone is willing to undo a block then there is no concensus for the ban! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sam Korn

The claim that there is consensus for this banning requires a radically new definition of consensus. When multiple respected users oppose an action of this magnitude (and there can be no doubt that banning is a big deal), there is not consensus. We do not do votes for banning. We do not have some numerical system by which we determine who is to be banned, as we do to an extent at RfA. We have a system for sorting out banning in complicated cases: it's called the Arbitration Committee. The block of Mantanmoreland is not justified or permitted by some arbitrary number of people supporting it on ANI. There must be outstanding support. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree entirely with Lar about banning SamiHarris for sock abuse and don't think there is a great deal of opposition to this. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, as Daveh4h has completely misread my above comment: when there are several established users who advocate against a course of action, then it is inappropriate to find "consensus". It isn't some balance of "these guys have so many Respected Editors, these guys have so many Reasonably Respected Editors, how do they quantitatively balance out?" I did not say that people who want MM banned are not respected users. I quite honestly don't know how you got that impression. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SlimVirgin

Sixteen administrators, including two bureaucrats, and another two editors in good standing, have objected on WP:AN to the block, so there is clearly no consensus for it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Jay*Jay

Well, I suspect this is a first for ArbCom - the need for a clarification before the case is even closed. I want to endorse a couple of the comments above - I think the talk pages of the case have made it abundantly clear that some ArbCom members would like to have gone further; others believe that enough has been done and the rest can be cleaned up by the community; others think that sock puppetry has not been established. Without commenting on who believes what, the case pages seem to indicate that the committee's consensus was sock puppetry was likely, but that the community could act independently if it chose. This needs to be clarified, explicitly, and not by individual ArbCom members speaking. It needs a straight vote to endorse or not endorse a statement such as "The decision in Mantanmoreland does not preclude the community from establishing and acting on a consensus that further action should be taken. Nothing in this declaration limits any editor from appealing that action to the committee." If the committee chooses not to make the position in this area crystal clear, they should anticipate a further case in the immediate future, in my opinion.

I would also like to add a couple of observations on the statement from Doc, as several assertions should not be left unchallenged.

  • I'm actually neutral on the facts/evidence - this is clearly disputed - see the WP:AN discussion.
  • There's a bunch of people that are saying that evidence that didn't compel arbcom is compelling. Well, obviously it isn't, or you'd have been compelled. - compelled to come to a conclusion about the sock puppetry is one thing; compelled to act on that conclusion is quite another. The case pages indicate concerns about being definitive, and concerns to present a decision that all could support - such concerns may compell some not to act on their conclusion as to the evidence of sock puppetry.
  • Any community discussion is not the whole community, and has the potential to be influenced by good organisation and loud shouting (it may not be thoughtful, and may not be representative) - this exact argument can be used for tossing out consensus on any decision at AN, ANI, RfA, XfD, DRv, ...
  • I contend that the 15 thoughtful people elected after careful consideration, whilst they may be wrong, are far more likely to represent the voice and sanity of the community than a AN thread - but ArbCom have explicitly indicated there were other considerations here. Concern about legal exposure is one that may force them to move away from representing the "voice of the community". Further, ArbCom isn't elected to be a de facto government to decide issues for the community - the notion that, the community can't act once ArbCom is involved, is both offensive to the notion of consensus and dangerous. ArbCom are not the rulers and the community is not the ruled. There needs to be some rapid action to squash this notion.

Jay*Jay (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding comments from Morven:

Morven: The Arbitration Committee could not find a consensus to block in this case. Applying the unanimity version of "consensus", maybe not - but I still think a banning vote would pass, and that it wasn't held because of a desire to avoid showing the division within the committee (and particularly who would oppose). Certainly the allegations finding of fact makes it clear that a majority is at least willing to go as far as sock puppetry being likely (and I suspect this is an understatement, given the much stronger views that a couple of committee members have expressed). Then, there are jpgordon's comments on the 'majority' formulation of the finding: "what would it actually mean if I voted against it? That I didn't believe that the majority felt that way? (I'm pretty sure the majority feels that way.) Certainly the plurality feels that way." I think the majority were comfortable declaring "sock", but there was debate over banning and a couple of strong dissents - UC and JPG, to judge from the opposition to the sock puppetry principle - and that this is about preventing disclosure of any more information about the internal division.


Morven: Concern for legal exposure was NOT stated or discussed as a reason by any Arbitrator in public or as far as I know in private. Newyorkbrad, on the talk page of the proposed decision, talking about drafting (emphases added): I also reasoned that it would be highly undesirable to write anything in an "official decision of the Arbitration Committee" that was likely to be used, or misused, in the context of off-wiki disputes. Contrary to some speculation, I personally am not aware of any legal threats against Wikipedia from anyone involved in this matter, and no such threats influenced how I drafted the decision. On the other hand, given the real-world background to the on-wiki dispute, I did not desire through the decision itself to create evidence that could be used someday by any side in some other and very different kind of proceeding.

When the drafter of the decision states, on-wiki, that he considered the use of the decision in a legal case (and that is clearly the allusion here - and it was even clearer the second time he said this), it is clear that potential for litigation did get some consideration - maybe not litigation against the Wikimedia Founddation itself - but legal concerns played a role. Then, there is proposed principle 8: "Arbitration decisions should be read with these limitations in mind and should not be used, or misused ... [in any off-wiki] proceeding". No comment...


Morven: Distrust of the statistical methods used WAS discussed as a reason not to support a block. Only UC has made concerns about statistics clear - and on his talk page, not on the case pages, as far as I recall. There were a few vague comments made, but nothing with anything like the necessary detail to make addressing any concerns possible. I don't understand why questions like this were not put directly, so they could be addressed. Surely the committee members didn't want to avoid providing an opportunity for editors to address their concerns about the quality of the evidence?


Morven: We did not prohibit a block of MM but neither did we endorse it, thus the normal standards for a community ban apply. This matches previous statements from Newyorkbrad, and also FT2: "But the above case may indicate that non-mention is no bar to action if circumstances change, which is the main concern of this thread. (For avoidance of doubt, it's also not a bar to usual decision-making based upon usual norms and standards and such.)" Whilst we can't indefinitely block because the consensus standard is replaced by the absurd unanimity standard, we (the community) appear to be able to use consensus to ban (and thus block) for (say) a year, with a review to be conducted in 11 months to decide upon a renewal. Jay*Jay (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Gerard (talk)

  • Everything Doc glasgow says.
  • Also, would anyone be safe even being exonerated by the arbcom if enough of a lynch mob could be gathered?
  • Also, saying "it's wheel-warring to unblock because it isn't the community ban we wanted, it's just an unrighteous block" reeks of rules-lawyering - David Gerard (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie

There is a consensus for this. It's on the AN thread. Consensus doesn't mean unanimous. That's ridiculous. The vast majority of folks on the AN thread are in agreement that a sockpuppet master (whose been caught multiple times over several years, mind you) deserves to be blocked. This is pure obstructionism. The last refuge of scoundrels is no longer Patriotism, apparently, it's "Take it to ArbCom" instead.

The ArbCom was well aware of the fact that there was going to be a community effort, and specifically said things like "It wouldn't surprise me; given the nature and volume of the evidence, the community doesn't really need our help to make that decision." when asked if they thought a community ban would be affected. Instead of sorting this, we should be considering the wheel-war unblock WITHOUT the vast majority consensusm that existed in that thread, and without even attempting to discuss it with the neutral administrator who applied the block. SirFozzie (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to David Gerard) Once again, you show that you think you're above the community. First the IRC page thing (which you got dinged for), and now this. You'd be wise to stop referring to the vast majority of even UNINVOLVED folks on that discussion as a lynch mob, including the neutral administrator who applied the block. SirFozzie (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental statement by SirFozzie

I'd like to thank FT2 for spending a couple hours with me last night, trying to explain why ArbCom did what it did to tapdance around the core issue from the community, which is the link between Samiharris and Mantanmoreland. I've had time to think about it, and while I can't go into the arguments presented, I can say this. I can understand where ArbCom was coming from on this, but I do NOT agree with them.

I'm trying to do a little tapdancing around the issue of my own. But let me say this. ArbCom has chosen to view the off-WP consequences of this as much as they have for a reason. But that means they deprecate the core issue. That Mantnamoreland, nee Gary Weiss, has imported a real life, real world financial controversy onto Wikipedia, and should not be shielded from the consequences of his actions.

We are an encyclopedia. We have rules. If someone wants to come in and break the rules, they risk the consequences if their actions become known. ArbCom is trying to do no harm... but the harm is already done. I fully expect to see this in the press, quickly, and every caricature, every barb thrown at us will have been proven true. I'm disgusted with what this means for the encyclopedia anyone can edit. SirFozzie (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

There is obviously no urgency to block the Mantanmoreland account. It is under some of the most stringent socking remedies, with indefinite effect, and the most swingeing enforcement provisions I've ever seen, and is likely to be under permanent scrutiny. There is no justification for an immediate block. The block by Coren was reversed by Doc and discussion continues, which I think it the right thing. The possibility of a community ban, or an alternative community remedy, is being discussed and should be permitted to continue without prejudice. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that, from examining the edits of Mantanmoreland carefully, I find the suggestion that he imported a dispute into Wikipedia improbable. He certainly socked, but otherwise his edits put me in mind of a fellow who breaks into your home and doesn't take anything but fixes the microwave and replaces the toilet paper. If he's been pushing some agenda, it's far too subtle to register on my radar. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not quite on topic Statement by User:Rocksanddirt

The question is of double standards for some users v. others. If we continue to allow the double standards and not take action against them, the project suffers greatly. We enjoy our fantasy of equality here, but it doesn't ring true regarding mm/sh/wb/gw/pb/investors in their shorts. The committee can endorse equality of users or not through a clearly worded clarification or endorsement of one position on the community sanctions discusion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another off topic comment - Mackan79 appears to have been blocked yesterday for sounding like wb? Will we face the double standard on this issue or not? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lar

Most of what I wanted to say has been said. A key point is found what Matthew Brown says below, and the interpretation I make of it is that ArbCom did in fact remand this back to the community. I can find more specific diffs if it really matters. If we hold to the standard that a community ban means that not one admin is willing to overturn it, there is no justification for a community ban of both accounts. If we hold to the standard that a community ban means a consensus to ban, it's arguable... I don't want to shade over into votes for banning to be sure, but the numbers do indicate a lot of support, and also a minority, but fair number of opposes. I'd call it consensus, but perhaps others would not.

I have to say I find it hilarious (in a sad way) that this case got a request for clarification perhaps before it technically closed... (and maybe I jumped the gun starting the discussion by making a proposal, although it seemed a good idea at the time)

I'd also like to see the question of whether a block of Samiharris is a good idea separated out from the Community Ban part. An/Tony put forward that a block of Sami on sock grounds was a good idea, at one point. That seems prudent to me even failing to endorse the rest. ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Relata refero

  • Why is the block/unblock being discussed here? What do we expect ArbCom to do? It has been made quite clear on the proposed decision page that ArbCom does not intend to stand in the way of any future community action, which has always been the case.
  • On the subject of consensus/unblocking/"counting": Will SV, David Gerard, etc., etc. please note that blocking policy currently reads "uninvolved" adminstrators. SV, please feel free to update your figures till they comply with policy. DocG, please feel free to alter your statement till it complies with policy.
  • Morven, I note you said "consensus to block". I didn't know ArbCom was working on internal consensus these days, rather than the more normal majority voting. It certainly explains the wording of PFoF 2.1.
  • David: "being exonerated by the arbcom" - did not happen in this case; "if enough of a lynch mob could be gathered" - no, nobody ever was safe from that. Which is why people worried about private mailing lists and Other Controversial Locations for Off-Wiki Co-ordination.
  • Everyone please take a moment to go over their statements and check that they aren't talking about "ban" when they mean "indefblock". This includes Morven.
  • I'd rather that DocG not have stated a weak rationale when unblocking against (uninvolved) consensus, and even more that that weak rationale not be based on inaccurate facts. Not that that is relevant, and now Morven has pointed out that DocG was wrong in his assumptions.
  • Tony: your "examination" has been, at best, a little careless. This has been pointed out already. Note to self: resist the urge to make crack about "too subtle for me", resist it, resist it :)
  • Coren has pointed out that he was willing to unblock in the normal way if contacted, but he wasn't. If you want to talk about irregularity and consensus like a lot of policy-wonks, include that bit. Relata refero (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Neil

Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_of_Mantanmoreland_and_Samiharris.

  • Clear:
    • 31 firmly in favour of ban (Lar, Lawrence Cohen, SirFozzie, Jehochman, Naerii, Durova, Alanyst, Amerique, 82.19.1.139, R. Baley, Wizardman, WAS 4.250, Rocksanddirt, Krimpet, Mackan79, GRBerry, JoshuaZ, Sceptre, Hmwith, Noroton, Daveh4h, Achromatic, LessHeard vanU, MPerel, Crotalus horridus, Neil, Eleland, Pascal Tesson, Bigtimepeace, Cla68, Viridae)
    • 12 against (Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, Sam Korn, Theresa Knott, David Gerard, Doc Glasgow, JzG, IronDuke, AGK, Dmcdevit, Blueboy96, Wjscribe, Addhoc)
  • Others (7):
    • 1 comment that block may not solve issue (Kingturtle)
    • 2 prefer topic ban (Random832, MastCell)
    • 1 "wait and see" (Carcharoth)

Unfortunately, it's a flimsy consensus to indefinitely ban someone, even Mantanmoreland. Lar probably initiated the discussion too soon, Coren probably acted too soon in blocking, Doc Glasgow unblocking without discussion with Coren while warning that anyone who dared overturn him would be wheel-warring (simultaneously flouting policy with one hand while quoting it with the other) didn't help in calming things down. Neıl ☎ 15:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this take into account the people that endorsed after Coren blocked? Lawrence § t/e 16:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note for avoidance of doubt - Coren and Doc G have apparently now spoken completely amicably on this, and all's sorted out there, for anyone who wondered. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by daveh4h

  • Theresa knott says: I Pretty much agree with everything Doc says but would like to add that our standards for a community ban has always been that once blocked no admin was willing to unblock. That may be true. But I would guess, or hope, that the admin unblocking would have to attempt to get consensus for the unblock, as did the blocker.
  • Sam Korn says: When multiple respected users oppose an action of this magnitude (and there can be no doubt that banning is a big deal), there is not consensus Is that your hook now? People that are supporting a ban of MM aren't "respected" enough? Perhaps you should file an arbcom to rid the site of users that are not respected enough, then the community would be ran exactly to your liking!
  • Sam Korn says: We have a system for sorting out banning in complicated cases: it's called the Arbitration Committee. Yes, and it failed to act! You would know more about why than I, since you have access to the arbcom mailing list, but not for a minute do I believe that you do not see the huge pile of shit that the arbcom dumped into the community's lap. You realize that.
  • SlimVirgin says: Sixteen administrators, including two bureaucrats, and another two editors in good standing, have objected on WP:AN to the block, so there is clearly no consensus for it. This is an appeal to authority. Or is this a way of saying that the majority of people asking for a block are unimportant, since they do not have those permissions on a website? This argument carries zero weight with me, perhaps I am arrogant.
  • David Gerard says: Also, would anyone be safe even being exonerated by the arbcom if enough of a lynch mob could be gathered? As long as the arbcom decision does not radically go against community consensus, as it did here, I think they'll be ok. This is an unusual case and one that has been left to fester for two years. You know that this is a complex and unusual case; however, if you do not believe this is a complex case, then I get a better feel of where you are coming from with your comments. Please let us know if you think this is a simple case.

More on appeals to authority (respected users, admins, crats): How many different levels of consensus have to be acheived, now? Must we get a consensus among stewards to issue a block/ban now, too? Lar is one, maybe he can speak for steward consensus! Since two bureaucrats stating that they did not support a block/ban is carrying weight, then maybe my statement should read something like: Lar is a steward. Case closed. I'd at least like to pretend I'm a little bit intellectual honest, though. It is overall community consensus that matters. Remember, it was respected admins that protected MM and his socking in the first place. The community followed their judgment because we had no reason not to. They are respected users! This time we have an abundance of reason to not follow the judgment of certain respected users. There is no need to apply more weight to someone's opinion simply because they have an extra permission on a website--That's counter to the ideals that are set forth in this community. That a few respected users with a history of protecting MM are opposed to a ban of MM should not be surprising; moreover, it should not carry more weight than any other opinion--in fact, quite the contrary.

Dave, you're reading more into one comment above, than I think Sam intended. When he says for example "multiple respected users" he's more likely to be meaning "people with reputations for judgement" as opposed to "those with status". (Inevitably some of those with good judgement will also have been given additional trust by the community too.) Rewrite the words you quote: "A community ban is not a vote. When it is opposed by a significant number of users in good standing, then there is de facto doubt if it meets our norm for a community ban." FT2 (Talk | email) 18:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Random832

Since the discussion did not take the form of an "up/down" vote, it is unclear how many users are on each 'side', and various numbers are being advanced. Would those who think the numbers are relevant please enumerate which users you are interpreting as support or oppose, with diffs for each? I would like to also take this opportunity to explicitly state that my own remark was intended as neutral, and I am concerned that it may be being counted as an oppose. (EDIT: Based on Neil's analysis, I gather that I am indeed being counted among the "sixteen") —Random832 16:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there should also be some analysis of who opposed on solely process grounds, as compared to who opposed because they're not convinced of the evidence or because they don't think that MM's actions, even when they agree on their nature, were bannable. If no-one else does this analysis I am willing to do it tomorrow. —Random832 16:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amerique

I've got an idea. Instead of arguing over whether to block MM or not, why not edit WP:SOCK and WP:COI policies to allow sockpuppeting in pursuit of COI, as long as someone has a good reason for it, like say "off-site harassment," as this is the position the committee effectively stands for? Works for me, if the committee does not care that this guy double voted in the last ArbCom election nor that he socked to create a false appearance of consensus in the BADSITES case, why should any of us care about this anywhere else in the encyclopedia? Clearly, at this point, policy is way out of line with permissible practice as determined by the committee. Ameriquedialectics 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might benefit from reading and considering, rather than assuming a misrepresention of others' words and views this way. If you had read statements, you will find indications why this stance is taken... including assessment of norms for handling alleged (and even confirmed) abusive puppetry that suggest your concept of sock-issue handling is not in fact on track. Your points are each about COI/puppetry, but you haven't considered that our norm on these is much more usually that where possible and positive contributions may be made in other areas, we deal with the potentially abusive conduct going forward, and then let the editor edit if they wish subject to any needed restrictions related to the area of dispute, if there is a chance their other edits may yet be constructive. Your contention that somehow people "did not care", stated in a parodying superficial manner that WP:POINT calls "ineffective" and "designed to provoke", is grossly distorting of this, and an example of the kind of "more heat than light" so often referred to in this case as a major problem. Please don't in future. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carcharoth

For the record, my position was not one of support or oppose, other than to say that we should wait and see what happened (ie. give the arbcom remedies a chance). I would not have stood in the way of a community ban if that has been the result. I was also highly critical of the process and timescale, as well as one of Coren's blocking rationales.

  • The second blocking rationale - "the very magnitude of the drama above is the perfect illustration on how immensely and irremediably disruptive this editor has been, and how much strife he has caused" (as stated by User:Coren) - I strongly disagree with this. The day that we start to block merely because the community is having one of its periodic dramafests is the day that the community is finished as a coherent entity that can be respected and its decisions seen to have any worth outside that of mob rule. In any large community, there will always be disagreement and differences of opinion. That should not result in a general principle that 'drama in the community' = 'disruption by the editor being discussed'. That veers dangerously close to the often unprovable accusation of trolling. Stick to the facts and discuss those and come up with a process to reduce the drama and allow the community to express itself in a calm manner.
  • Process - Community ban discussions at AN are, at present, chaotic and poorly structured affairs. Please visit Wikipedia talk:Community sanction for discussion on how such community ban discussions could be better handled. For now, I'll repeat what I've said before:

    "I think the process of community banning could be improved a lot: (1) Clear start and end points and no closing early; (2) People declaring their interest and article and/or editor involvement (or uninvolvement) up front (ie. have they been involved with the editor before and how - anyone failing to declare this gets their comment discounted); (3) Clear presentation of the latest evidence and links to previous evidence; (4) Giving the editor in question a chance to defend themselves; (5) Such discussions not being a response to the "latest incident", and hence not decided in the "heat of the moment"."

    Things like "saying what alternatives are available and why they wouldn't work" are other possibilities. RfC is very structured. RfArb is very structured. Is there any reason why community ban discussions need to be so dramatic and ad-hoc?
  • Timescale - Compare the timescale of the three processes people have cited so far. The RfC opened at 16:52, 12 February 2008 and the last edit to date (which was also still part of the discussion there) has been 03:43, 16 February 2008. That is over four days of discussion. The RfArb opened at 22:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC) and will effectively close at 11:49, 13 March 2008. That is nearly a full month of discussion. This thread was opened by Lar at 17:13, 12 March 2008, and Coren blocked at 03:05, 13 March 2008 (I know, a block not a ban, but still). That is just under 10 hours of discussion before the block was placed (though discussion appears to be ongoing). I think allowing only 10 hours for the discussion, however long or heated or drama-filled, is a travesty of process.

Apologies for importing great chunks from the AN thread, but that pretty much sums up what I have to say on this matter. Carcharoth (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cool Hand Luke

It's suggested that ArbCom "exonerated" these users, but they did nothing of the sort. This confusion is precisely why I asked for an explicit finding that the community is free to decide. If the Committee has any interest in quelling the drama, they would take this opportunity to decide this once and for all. I will probably respect any decision they render.

Remember, ArbCom is the path of least drama. And if you actually do "exonerate" them, that's fine. It lets users make an informed decision about whether they want to be part of this project.

Otherwise, ArbCom should quickly reaffirm that this case is in the community's hands. Cool Hand Luke 20:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony claims that David Gerard only hypothetically said that ArbCom might exonerate people in the future. If that's the case, then I wonder why Gerard would want to bring it up in a case where ArbCom did not exonerate anyone. Cool Hand Luke 21:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

Whether or not the idea of running a community ban discussion was endorsed by the entire Committee, it was suggested by members of the Committee on a proposed decision talk page. Those individuals offered the Archtransit precedent and interested editors discussed the matter with them there. Lar's proposed ban was not a farfetched interpretation of some passing comment. In fact, no member of the Committee objected to the idea until a ban discussion was already underway.

This was not well done. It raises doubts about how closely the Committee members read arbitration talk pages. Whether or not the Committee alters any part of its decision here, the ban discussion also demonstrates that the consensus of the Committee is seriously out of step with the views of the community. This is not the only recent occasion when the Committee's own actions revealed such a discordance. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman, the Committee moved to voting twelve hours after the case opened and then postponed its decision for a month to run a user conduct RFC on an administrator. Although the RFC was run on the most prejudicial of terms--with an active desysopping proposal moving toward approval--the community provided more than enough support for the sysop in question to reinstate him immediately at RFA. The only effect that input had upon the case outcome was that the Committee retained him under its own control when it went ahead and desysopped him anyway. Rather than submit to that, he exercised his right to vanish...and the whole case had been undertaken for the sake of an account that had less than 50 edits. This was the worst of several recent cases that were not conducted well.

Being an arbitrator means making tough decisions that displease people. That's the nature of the beast and the Committee is entrusted with considerable powers and autonomy so that its members can act without fear of retaliation. Yet the Committee has been inviting demonstrations of community opinion that show just how unpopular its own choices are. Today an editor in good standing invited me to review a draft RFC on the arbitration committee. To see that idea seriously entertained should give pause. DurovaCharge! 23:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LessHeard vanU

I would request that clarification is given to the wording of WP:BAN#Decision to ban - Pt.1 as invoked by both David Gerard and Doc glasgow in (potential) unblocking (putting aside that Coren blocked with a rationale that did not invoke community ban criteria) in that the wording "propose an unblock" specifies an intent and not the action, and that by unblocking that a violation of WP:WHEEL may have occurred - albeit in good faith. This may not be the correct venue, but also clarification that in the matter of a community ban being in place that the unblock proposal itself requires consensus before being enacted may be useful; even as part of notes and comments rather than any decision on the other matters. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

As I see it:

  1. The Arbitration Committee could not find a consensus to block in this case.
  2. The reasons were varied.
  3. Concern for legal exposure was NOT stated or discussed as a reason by any Arbitrator in public or as far as I know in private
  4. Distrust of the statistical methods used WAS discussed as a reason not to support a block
  5. We did not prohibit a block of MM but neither did we endorse it, thus the normal standards for a community ban apply
  6. The convention is that a community ban does not hold if there is sufficient dissent that a single administrator is willing to perform an unblock, which has occurred.
  7. Claims that the block had consensus don't hold water when approx. a dozen admins have opposed it.

(I may add more to this later, but that's my current opinions.) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long post
First thoughts

This was always going to be a controversial case. There were always going to be people uncontent, and here's what some forget: dispute handling is not a decision process based on popularity alone. If it were, then we could all have a happy-happy vote and be done. No. Arbcom exists in large part, because there are sometimes voices that will not listen to a more calm perspective, and believe only 1/ nuking or 2/ ignoring "the problem as they see it", solves it. There are many voices saying "ban these users" - that's a given. With deep respect, I have to put it simply. A few users' posts have at times come across somewhat as a demand not only to ban the user/s concerned, but equally, to damn or accuse anyone who dares thinks otherwise.

No. That is not how we do it here. From where a number of others see this, a number of users are risking presenting themselves as hot headed and over reactive in this, and not considering (or wishing to consider) the change of circumstances that a ruling like this creates. They are treating this almost as if we were back in 2006/07 and no arb case had been held. They would benefit from slowing down. Traditionally and factually, Arbcom is de facto the end of the line for problematic editing from editors brought to its attention. (Too much attention, too much light, end of line for most problems.) In fact, stridency to the point of disruption, as some have done, is precisely what has made the entire case so difficult in the past. More than one person has said that those shouting were their own worst enemies. They were, in my view, 100% right in that assessment.

We have never run Wikipedia by emotionally drive heat. This was a block to obtain good conduct in the presence of strong AN debate, although some sought to build it into a ban. However both of these conflicted with an incipient Arbitration view. Had we felt a ban was needed, we are more than able to rule one, and as a Committee, we do so regularly. In this case, complete prevention was likely achievable by lesser means, and it is a norm of Wikipedia dispute resolution and has been for years not to use more force than necessary to obtain good conduct.

The block was clearly by an uninvolved admin in good faith trying to best judge a heated area that had enveloped the whole community, and which absent an Arbitration case would have probably been useful. The view backing a block, or a conversion to a ban, was communally supported by a significant number, but also contested by a significant number of well respected users, and lesser measures were already in place to deal with the issue requiring an indef block; hence Doc G's unblock was also done correctly. I note in this context, that we only recently (CSN) had an MFD to kill off the growing edge of "vote driven bans" as a direction we did not want to go in.

In this case, a number of users who are 1/ voted by the community, and are 2/ trusted to examine the most complex cases and 3/ to examine past cases where significant information was considered, spent a lot of time, and concluded effectively just the same day as to appropriate measures. Unfortunately a number of people looked to Arbitration not for "the" verdict, but for "their" verdict. That is never an excuse. In every Arbitration case, there will be some who heatedly, angrily, confusedly, indignantly, feel it must have gone their way, and wax heated when it does not give them everything they hoped for.

The case went to Arbitration, a lot of people don't like the decision or see it as a lack of firm statement. But if dispute resolution is to work, people need to learn to live with decisions they don't like, including that sometimes, the better question is not "who is wrong" so much as "what protection is needed".

I have significant respect for the people shouting, as individuals, and for their concerns. SirFozzie and I have spoken on more than a few occasions, with never a dispute, and have done so last night and today. But this anger has to end. The aim of arbitration is to address the issue, and believed or not, the issue is actually addressed. None of the parties or their supporters or opponents is going to get a golden medal of who was right, who was wrong; we can all drop it and get back to content and normal stuff. The articles warred over will be watched by many, as will the parties, and any suspect new editors.

Those who clamored endlessly here, are not, as they might imagine, heroes or wiki-vigilantes. They actually got in the way and disrupted, and in my own opinion, over reacted badly. They showed a gross misunderstanding of the very basics. We are an encyclopedia... and we do not act as was done.

Further to the point, in most cases where puppetry is alleged, the remedy is traditionally to remove the ability to engage in concerning behavior, and then leave the user with the chance to show their intentions. This has been the case in numerous instances where socking was effectively considered proven, not merely alleged. Such users routinely have had as recourse, their actions restricted -- and then been allowed to edit as normal to a high standard if they choose. A ban is not the norm, unless there is a lot more than just sockpuppetry at issue. Even double (or more) !voting has been allowed to fall into the past in other cases. If the user is a sysop, the adminship is usually revoked, is the other result. Beyond that, we let them show how they will act subsequently. If it's unrepentant, then the end of the line is inevitable. But we let them choose to return to the community in good faith, or show their intentions by editing. Their choice after arbitration.

Specific comments
  1. Blocks and bans exist mostly to protect the project going forward. (Exception: It is rare that a ban is placed for gross breach of trust, and when this has been done it is usually an arbcom action and/or very high level of consensus.) In this case it is my view that recent case decisions mean there is little risk to protect the project against.
  2. The community can and does act on its own. Witness Archtransit. However in that case it was made clear that the admin tools were being withdrawn, but that no further remedy was proposed to deal with the puppetry. In this matter however the driving force is heat, not light. Not one person has shown that there is a real risk of editing abuse going forward, and a cold hard look at the remedies, niche focus of the disputants, and communal awareness of the matter, will show that indeed, there probably is not. Further, when the senior dispute resolution panel has decided certain measures are likely to be sufficient, it is inappropriate for even established users to act in a way that does not respect that.
  3. Samiharris - Samiharris has been handled exactly as any other party who ceases editing before the case on what appears to be a permanent basis. We often address them if/when they return to edit, and in fact have done so in cases far more egregious than this. We also at times block, and at times do not block, accounts where puppetry is possible/has some evidence/suggestive. Both are communal norms, so I am not going to give any view on this, except, ensure what is done is appropriate and fairly considered. (As an aside, note that a block would have negligible effect: SH's sole edits were via a proxy, which is independently blocked anyway I hope. But then again we know the areas of contention anyhow.)
  4. Mantanmoreland - Both block and unblock were within communal norms; Coren confirms the block was to achieve good conduct of a communally suspected repeat puppeteer (a proper purpose) and would have been removed once assurances on future conduct were received. But in this case, specific remedies had already been provided for any untoward future conduct (and the block was also disputed by other users), making the need for this a bit redundant.
  5. Tagging is probably unnecessary, and possibly provocative. Anyone who needs to know, knows already. There can be little doubt of that. A simple tag on SH's page "this is a suspected sock of..." might give vindication and rewarding feelings to some, but is actually pretty pointless really at this time. Feel free to edit war over it if needed. Usual sanctions probably apply.
  6. I note that the blocks, and unblocks, were both done by relatively uninvolved admins. I am profoundly glad that this norm was followed, note the two admins concerned are both amicable to each other, and I glad that if any admins were to have acted, they were relatively uninvolved ones. Thank you to those who were involved, but held back. You did a good job there.
  7. We don't run Wikipedia and especially, its sanction mechanisms, based on "I think that user is bad". We run it based on users' assessment of their disruption to the project going forward. We don't whip up heated emotional dramas around things, and I urge those who are persistently complicit in doing so, to consider desisting ("more light than heat"). The same names often keep coming up in this context.

Apologies for the tone. The user comments by some are genuine and emotive -- but as I see it, a number of views are also misdirected and misconceived. That needs saying and I lack the certainty that saying it tactfully will be heard. If anyone feels I have spoken wrongly of them though, please contact me, and I'll be glad to discuss. Specific questions raised I'll answer on the talk page in a bit.

FT2 (Talk | email) 16:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(And note, there are some differences in perception between Arbitrators when it comes to the question of a site ban. Arbitrators, including myself, often speak individually as well as "as a committee" and are not shy to state personal views if they differ. Hence users will see different "takes" on this. That said, what we did agree on was that a topic ban was appropriate in our decision, but a site ban was -at this time anyhow - not.) FT2 (Talk | email) 16:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I will try to say little, because there is so much that could be said. We have conflicting precedents regarding the threshold for community bans, as well as for how often administrators may undo one another's actions. The weight of the discussion on WP:AN suggests that a solid majority of participants support an indefinite block on both the Mantanmoreland and Samiharris accounts, but that there is enough dissension that the ordinary standards for a community ban have not been satisfied. Normally, administrators should not unblock against consensus, but it can be argued that unblocking to reflect dissent from a community ban is appropriate—at which point, if others support a ban, the matter can generally be brought before the Arbitration Committee—but here the case has already been here, and produced a decision regarded by some as insufficient, leading to the AN discussion in the first place. As the principal drafter of the nuanced decision that is now being found inadequate by many, I obviously have mixed feelings about every aspect of the matter: I thought the proposed decision was a good one, and was strengthened by remedies added more recently, and frankly I think that in writing decisions I generally know what I am doing and am entitled to a presumption to that effect, and I also would not want to devalue the deliberative process of this committee—but I am not a tribune, and I as a new editor once myself got a plurality of arbitrators to vote to reverse a remedy when I found it to be unjust, and I have no interest in shoving my personal opinions, even when joined by up to 14 colleagues, down an unwilling community's throat; and yet, the community speaks here not with one but with a multitude of voices; through a majority, but not with unanimity, nor even near-unanimity. We have here a more than a bit of a wikiconstitutional conundrum, which bids fair to rise above the level of attention to which the subject of the case should be entitled, and one that should be approached slowly and cautiously by all concerned to minimize the destructive impact of the tensions that have already occurred. While I and my colleagues and all of us ponder how it would be best to proceed, I would refer all concerned to Mantanmoreland's comments on his user talk page today, for whatever they might be worth, and I would urge him, if he has any additional information or statement to offer regarding any aspect of this matter, to post it to his talkpage without any delay. And I see that as usual I have failed in my vow to say little. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motions and voting

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

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

  • Mackensen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)


Statement by Mackensen

As the committee is no doubt aware Encyclopaedia Dramatica is presently up on Deletion Review, in the form of a new draft article (User:Shii/ED). This editorial process is constrained by findings and rulings from the MONGO case, and may well have outlived their usefulness. The case turned on the harrassment of MONGO by other users, many of whom were connected with ED. While lamentable, this shouldn't have any bearing on our ability to cover or not cover a topic: it is not necessary to endorse the existence of thing in documenting it. Our policies demand an honest editorial debate on the matter, but the broadness of remedy # 1 and the obvious personal umbrage taken by numerous editors, including at least one sitting arbitrator, precludes such a debate.

FoF # 13 states that the article was deleted because "the content of the article was mainly derived from ED and our reaction to it, there being very little other information available to use as a reliable source." Arbcom isn't supposed to make content rulings, but we sometimes sneak them in anyway through obiter dicta like that one. Real challenges have been raised as to whether this is really the case anymore, and Shii's draft article does not fit such a description. This, more than anything else, suggests that the principles which undergird the case are no longer operative.

I would request that remedy # 1 be clarified either to refer only to articles concerning specific Wikipedia users, or revoked altogether. Most things on ED aren't suitable for this wiki anyway because of our "vast policy differences." In my view the committee overreached and prejudiced editorial decisions in drafting this decision. Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

Hey all...my deepest appreciation for informing me about this discussion! Seriously, an arbitration case I was named in, that appears to be on the threshold of having its major motions and remedies eliminated or severely altered and NO ONE BOTHERS TO LET ME KNOW! As can be seen by the DRV on this article, there does not seem to be a community backed consensus to restore the article that has been developed in another editor's userspace. [46]...so what brings all this up? Well, let me inform you of what I know. Firstly, over a dozen of our editors resigned due to the ongoing harassment posted about them at that website...Do we need to be so inclusive we risk losing editors just so we can be such a compendium of "knowledge"...I think not. The website is of only marginal notability at best...at best. Let me repeat my first point...I know of at least a dozen editors who quit editing here because of the stuff posted on that website. I know this because after I went through what I did with the people affiliated with that website, I received over a dozen calls for aide...at one point the possibility of suing them was considered. Phaedriel was probably the best known editor to abandon this project...thanks in no small part to that website. Second point...IF we recreate the article, then ultimately someone will link to that website...that is where my fight started. They made their MONGO article "featured" and posted it on their mainpage...I repeatedly removed those links from our article on that website and was combated by a series of trolls and other editors who for some bizarre reason did not understand that I was not going to allow them or that website to libel me via this one...I am not a pedophile as the people there have written. Phaedriel is not the things they claim about her, nor are the other "wikipedos" that they have listed, accurately depicted. For the record, the article they have on me is far from the worst...very far from it. But I am here on wikipedia to write articles and to protect our editors from harassment...I cannot do that if we, as a website, are going to turn a blind eye to this major issue just so we can be "all inclusive", especially when we are talking about a website of extremely marginal notability, that attacks our contributors, and yes, slanders and libels them. Many complain that we, right here on Wikipedia, also slander and libel people, especially in our bios...that is a serious issue, but we have the power here to do something about that. We do not have the power to make adjustments to the same (and generally far worse) slander and libel that ED presents. But we can control whether we import that nonsense here. There are still millions of articles we can write...what the heck makes having an article on ED so important? How many articles do we yet lack about various insect species, birds, plants, glaciers, people, events, places? Maybe the committee would be better off telling the dramaqueens that have started to proliferate this website to start writing articles and stop wasting our server space with their generally worthless opinions, than spending so much energy rewriting an arbitration case in which the situation hasn't changed...that website still lacks notability, it still libels our contributors, it will ultimately lead to further problems...and further time wasted here, in this particular forum. Lastly, I do have other things I can do with my time than edit here...my life is valuable to me and the friends I have made here on this website are important to me...let's not be trendy and get limp wristed about this matter...we have an obligation to do all we can to make editing here a pleasant experience...not one where we have to look over our shoulder wondering why some creep has decided that he can link to ED and attack our contributors in the process. Yes, I know, the committee does not make content rulings in most cases...well maybe you should in this matter and do so with the spirit of respect and in the interest of facilitating encyclopedia writing and the writers who contribute here and ensuring they have the ability to spend their valuable personal time in peace as much as possible.--MONGO 07:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is really funny and so predictable. I just knew good ole Dtobais would show up to make his comment here...he wants Sceptre's activities examined here...lets instead examine Mr. Tobais...yes, examine via his own precious links to wikipedia review the less than appealing comments he has made about our editors...heck, lets examine his ongoing insults posted right here on this page and numerous others on wikipedia, where he neverendingly refers to those with the opposite beliefs of his on this type of subject as cabals, cliques, cadres.--MONGO 17:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Dtobias

The ill-conceived original MONGO decision was an unwarranted attempt on the part of ArbCom to make policy, and has been continually cited ever since by a small clique that is intent on imposing censorship of links that hurt their feelings. This BADSITES concept, a really bad idea, has been resoundingly rejected by the community as a whole every time it has come up. It's time to drive a stake through its heart once and for all. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that we don't let millions of Muslims offended by our images of Mohammed sway our editorial decisions, but we do let the offense of a handful of Wikipedians against ED influence us, says loads about our screwy priorities. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some inquiry into the actions of User:Sceptre would seem to be warranted; he attempted to intimidate the editor who proposed deletion review of ED by referring repeatedly to earlier people who did a similar thing getting banned, and also censored the discussion using a highly expansionist interpretation of the past ArbCom ruling whereby even links to the Alexa rankings of ED were considered illegal. His actions present a poster child for why the ArbCom ruling was a bad idea and ought to be overturned. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny and predictable that, rather than respond in a rational manner to my comments, MONGO instead engages in ad-hominem attacks at me. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carcharoth

I note that the deletion review of Encyclopedia Dramatica recently closed as "keep deleted", which is a fair enough close. I did notice one further edit, possibly as a result of this, or maybe not. Would the arbitration committee be able to comment on whether "recreation of the article" covers Encyclopedia Dramatica being mentioned at all in Wikipedia articles? ie. either in passing in other articles, or as a paragraph about the website, or as a section or entry in a list article? I raised this possibility at the DRV, but it didn't generate much discussion (possibly I arrived at the DRV too late for many people to even read what I posted there). I noted there that a sentence mentioning Encyclopedia Dramatica had existed at Criticism of Wikipedia#Humorous criticism for at least 5.5 months with seemingly no objections. Shortly after the deletion review finished, an IP editor removed the sentence in question from the "Criticism of Wikipedia" article. I have raised the issue at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia#Satire sentence removed. My question is, since that was to my knowledge the only reference in any Wikipedia article to Encyclopedia Dramatica, are we trying to remove any and all references to Encyclopedia Dramatica from all articles? If not, then are editors free to add "subarticle" level of material on Encyclopedia Dramatica to other Wikipedia articles where relevant? Carcharoth (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question has now been reverted. Carcharoth (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • "MONGO" (Oct 2006) and its more measured sister case a year later, "attack sites" (Oct 2007), were cases held at a time of high pressure. Shortly after the 'attack sites' case, the matter was in fact resolved not by huge edits and new policies, but by a few simple edits to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and a backup page explaining offsite attack links. MONGO is still cited these days as a base case on some issues, so it's worthwhile for that reason too -- especially as a significant number of users feel that it is now an arbcom-imposed 'blocker' for a possibly valid article, for reasons decided in the context of a heated dispute around 18 months ago. The community has broadly appeared to mature and deal with the issue, but these two cases are still cited and occasionally lead to problems and conflicts in the editorial process. Decisions drafted at heated times, especially very influential decisions, are often targeted to deal with the present issue and may well benefit from review, to consider whether they are still the best for us. Now its calmer, its sensible to have a second look at their long term results and double-check if those're the best we have. Without prejudice as to outcome, I'd agree that it may be useful to have a review by the Committee to consider these in the light of 2008. We probably could usefully do so. Accept. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. The Arbitration Committee should not permanently make a content ruling, if at all. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That too. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, a deletion review of Encyclopaedia Dramatica ("ED") is taking place—DRV being the appropriate forum because permission is being sought to re-create an article on a previously deleted topic. In the discussion so far, the majority view appears to be that ED is of borderline notability in terms of warranting a Wikipedia article, meaning that is within a reasonable discretionary range whether to have an article on it or not. In that context, in my DRV comment I made what I thought was a commonplace observation noting that ED's content includes material intentionally targeted at harassing and causing emotional distress to Wikipedia contributors. For example, because I once intervened as an administrator in an attempt to stop what I perceived as on-wiki harassment of an editor who was a minor, an ED article now lists me among Wikipedians who should be "rounded up and gassed like Jews." The Wikipedia community could quite reasonably determine that this type of material on a borderline-notable website disqualifies it from entitlement to a Wikipedia article publicizing such material or from any other form of our further attention. However, to the extent I expressed this opinion on the DRV, I did so as an individual editor, not as an administrator and certainly not as an arbitrator.
Mackensen appears to be concerned that this committee's unanimous decision barring links to ED in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, followed by the more splintered decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites, are being read by some as a prohibition against re-creating an article on ED regardless of the outcome of the DRV. Although this frankly would not be a heartbreaking result, I can understand the view that even so extreme a situation as gave rise to the committee's MONGO decision in the first place (it was written for a reason) should yield to the longstanding rule that the Arbitration Committee does not make content decisions.
Three of my colleagues above have voted to "accept" this matter for a review. Normally, requests for clarification are the subject of either arbitrator comments or a motion, not of "acceptance" or "rejection." In the two instances in which a case was formally accepted for review, a case page was created for statements and evidence, the review case stayed open for a number of weeks, and a new decision containing a full set of principles, findings, and remedies was handed down. That procedure would seem to be overkill in the context of the particular issue raised, would probably create a spate of Arbitratia Dramatica, and would threaten to consume a substantial amount of the community's and the committee's time and attention, at a time when the committee is behind schedule in dealing with several of our pending cases despite a historically low caseload.
Moreover, if, as my colleague FT2 suggests above, the issues underlying the Attack sites case have largely been resolved by the community, it would be grossly counterproductive to reopen the matter at the ArbCom level, particularly given that the main remedy in the Attack sites decision was a referral of the policy issues to the community in the first place.
Under the circumstances, the best way to deal with the request for clarification is probably to have an up-or-down vote on the principal concern expressed. Accordingly, I offer (but will abstain from voting on) the motion below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Might be better conceptually, rather than a ruling that says "don't link to ED" and another that says "you can create an article though", to modify those decisions to refer to the class of links that are problematic, and the class of sites ED is in, and how they should be handled? It is possible to say "creating an article on ED is allowed without using any source on ED", but it might be nicer (and more productive) to handle it like this:
  1. Give a clear definition of the way to gauge if a link is an "attack link" problem, and then clarify those links fall under WP:NPA,
  2. Clarify that in referencing sites known for carrying attacks and outings, exceptional care must be taken, including avoiding links where there is no overriding valid purpose that cannot be better served from a different location, and provide that consensus (not "attack site/BLP" revert wars and fighting) are looked to, if there is uncertainty, and
  3. Update references in "MONGO" to these more useful concepts.
This conceptually covers not just ED, but all such cases in future. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motions and voting

Because there are 15 active arbitrators of whom 1 is abstaining, a majority is 8.

Motion 1 - It is not prohibited to create a Wikipedia article on Encyclopædia Dramatica (per discussion above):
The Arbitration Committee's decisions in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites shall not be interpreted to prohibit (or to encourage) the creation of an article on Encyclopædia Dramatica. The existence and contents of any such article may be determined through the ordinary editorial and deletion processes.
Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC) (Note that permitting creation of a specific article on ED, and the suggestions below, are mutually compatible if needed.)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 06:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill 03:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. For the purposes of clarification of the previous decision. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support with the understanding that "this motion" will be re-visited if needed. My main concern comes from the past practice of keeping low quality content on site if there is not a consensus to remove vs. requiring a consensus to keep the low quality content. When closing Afds and DRVs, the Community is moving away from this practice especially if there are Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy concerns. This more recent practice is a reasonable approach to resolving user concerns that once low quality articles are added that it must remain on site in anticipation that it will eventually bloom into a well balanced good quality article. If needed I think that the Committee should endorse this practice in a ruling. An Encyclopedia Dramatica article, if ever re-created in a low quality state, might be an good example of why this is not a good idea. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:
  1. Proposed per above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Motion 2 - Linking if article recreated
If an article on Encyclopædia Dramatica is recreated, then editors may link to or quote that site for that article only, and only so far as is necessary to present high quality encyclopedic coverage whose citing is not possible from independent reliable sources. Questionable quotations and links may be removed by any user without regard to 3RR, pending discussion.
Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC) If recreation is allowed, then guidance on linking is needed, else we will surely have an immediate clarification request. Proposed guidance can be summed up as, "only if you really have to, and only on that article (and pertaining to it)". The "removal" clause is out of respect for the concerns of those who, if it is recreated, will have strong reservations about abuse.[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This would be fair as applied to most sites discussed in the "Attack pages" case or any similar site, but I am gravely troubled by allowing any linking to a site that contains overt and extreme harassment of editors here who are minors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Manifestly this is making policy. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The points made about linking in the Attack sites case remain pertinent here; I see no reason to carve out exceptions for specific sites at this point. Kirill 20:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Sam Blacketer and Newyorkbrad. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This would lead to confusion beyond necessity. On balance, I don't think this would improve the project. James F. (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I would prefer to decide whether to cross this bridge when we come to it, in other words when it is agreed that there can be an article on ED. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Motion 3 - Attack links
Links to media and other non-wiki pages, and external web pages, may be described as "attack links" if it is likely that a user following them would be exposed to material that is a clear personal attack or "outing" on themselves or other specific user(s). It is irrelevant whether the attack is explicit or subtle, or in what format it may be. In judging whether a link is an 'attack link', or judging 'likelihood' for a website, attention should be paid to the size and nature of the site, the location linked within it, the focus and usefulness of material found there, and the likely intentions of the poster, and 'attacks' are to be carefully distinguished from mere 'criticisms'. A link may be an attack link in one context and not in another, and may need removal even if not deliberately posted as a means of personal attack.
Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The committee's decision in the Attack sites case states that the policy issues surrounding links to "attack sites" or "attack pages" are referred to the community for policy development. Discussion of appropriate policies has continued and it appears that the issue is being responsibly addressed. I am not convinced there is a need for further action in this divisive policy area by the committee at this time. Therefore, although this proposal appears to be substantially sound as a policy matter, I am not convinced that it should be adopted by the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This kind of principle is well within norms and our usual role. Compare MONGO 11: A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances ("an attack site/link is one with these characteristics, and these norms apply"). FT2 (Talk | email) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I see no need to dig up Attack sites at this point; the present matter shows that the community is able to deal with it as a matter of course, if nothing else. Kirill 03:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is an attempt to revive 'Attack sites' which was rejected by the community. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Manifestly this is making policy. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Charles, Flo. The community either has no real appetite for this policy, or insufficient cohension to push it through, as per the previous cases. James F. (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I mostly agree with the motions wording, and completely with the spirit of the motion, but I think it needs to come from the Community per policy not by a new ruling of the Committee. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Motion 4 - Sourcing from websites known to carry material pejorative to users
In referencing sites known for carrying attack or "outing" material against users, exceptional care must be taken, including avoiding links where there is no overriding valid purpose that cannot be better served from a better location. Any user may replace such a link by another link serving the same purpose, from a less contentious website, or removing it (with posters agreement if possible) if it is not needed for a legitimate communal process. Links that have both valid concerns and also possible value, may need consensus-seeking to determine whether they have enough value to override the possible concerns.
Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The committee's decision in the Attack sites case states that the policy issues surrounding links to "attack sites" or "attack pages" are referred to the community for policy development. Discussion of appropriate policies has continued and it appears that the issue is being responsibly addressed. I am not convinced there is a need for further action in this divisive policy area by the committee at this time. Therefore, although this proposal appears to be substantially sound as a policy matter, I am not convinced that it should be adopted by the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This kind of principle is well within norms and our usual role. This is a more useful and usable reworking of the aim of the MONGO restrictions on certain sites. It does not introduce any contentious new policy, but does well address the situation and similar situations that MONGO tried to address on ED. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 06:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Per Brad.[reply]
  3. As in #3. Kirill 03:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Same issue as motion 3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Manifestly this is making policy. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per my thoughts on 3. James F. (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I mostly agree with the motions wording, and completely with the spirit of the motion, but I think it needs to come from the Community per policy not by a new ruling of the Committee. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Motion 5 - Amendment to past cases
In the case "Mongo", principles 3 and 7 shall be reworded to refer to "attack links", remedy 1 shall be reworded to refer to "links that the community determines are attack links may be removed" (etc.), and enforcement 1 shall refer to "attack links" and the reference to imported material and recording of blocks struck out.
Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As in #3. Kirill 03:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. To go with opposition to motions 3 and 4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Let sleeping dogs lie. Past principles have no value for precedent or policy. They had the purpose of explaining how a decision was made. If the decision was wrong, we should be considering that for review, not undermining it in this fashion. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per Charles Matthews. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Charles. James F. (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I would prefer a simple statement that a policy adopted by consensus of the community supersedes the MONGO and Attack sites cases, if that is what it is sought to accomplish here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The bulk of MONGO and Attack sites is sound and we probably don't wish to weaken or upturn them. But these specific items are outdated, and 18 months on hinder rather than help. Withdrawing them will be useful. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

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

Statement by MastCell

I recently requested review of the Ferrylodge decision, which found that Ferrylodge was subject to indefinite sanctions and could be banned from any "article" relating to pregnancy or abortion which he disrupted. I believe that Ferrylodge was disruptive at Talk:Abortion; however, there was some dispute as to whether the sanction extended to all namespaces, or merely article-space.

The previous request is here. It was archived by a clerk at a point where two Arbs had opined, seeming (to me at least) to indicate that the sanction should apply across all namespaces. However, the AE request which started it all was closed without action based on the recent Macedonia clarification. I'm a bit confused.

I'd like a clear finding about whether Ferrylodge's sanction applies to all namespaces, or only to article-space. If it applies narrowly to article-space, then I'd like to request that the Committee formally extend the sanction to all namespaces, as Ferrylodge's disruptive editing has always been most prominent in talkspace. While the specific thread which led to my request has become dormant, the underlying issue remains, and Ferrylodge has in the past temporarily improved his behavior when under scrutiny only to relapse when the scrutiny is lifted. Therefore, I'd like to request that the sanction be prospectively clarified or amended to apply to all namespaces.

Given the extensive degeneration and misdirection evident at my prior request, I'll state upfront that I'm not going to respond to attacks, criticism, deflection, specific content issues, etc in this request. I want to keep this focused on the specific amendment I'm requesting. I will provide more detailed evidence of any specific claim should the Arbitrators think it would be useful; that will be the extent of my commentary here. MastCell Talk 18:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ferrylodge

Unfortunately, I do not have time today to comment much. Hopefully I will have time to respond more fully on Monday or Tuesday. Unsurprisingly, I disagree with Mastcell.

The administrator who handled this matter at Arbitration Enforcement said: "Even had the ArbComm clarified that it was clearly intended to cover talk pages; I was probably not going to act. Using an article's talkpage to discuss article content is not inherently disruptive; that is the intended purpose of the talk page."[50]

Mastcell has not cited any specific article edit by me that he finds disruptive; he has only provided talk page diffs. And yet, he is requesting a vast expansion of the ArbCom decision in my case: "I'd like to request that the sanction be prospectively clarified or amended to apply to all namespaces." Is Mastcell referring to project namespace? Is he referring even to user namespace? I do not know. In any event, if Mastcell really wants to argue that I have recently been behaving disruptively at the abortion talk page, it would be most helpful if Mastcell would please identify the single specific diff that he thinks is most egregious, so that we can focus on it.

I believe that Mastcell was being disruptive recently at the abortion-related articles, and I have no regrets about reverting him here at the abortion article. I also continue to be flabbergasted by his subsequent reversion here at the related main article. So, I have concerns that Mastcell may be using this ArbCom forum in consequence of a content dispute, rather than because of any real disruption on my part.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Mastcell indicates[51] that he does not want to identify the specific diff that he thinks is most egregious (as I requested above), I doubt it would be helpful for me to say anything further at this time.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

I see that this request for clarification has sat here for 10 days without input from any arbitrator, which is excessive, and I apologize since the situation is 1/15th my fault. Having said that, can I ask the parties to comment whether this situation is an ongoing problem that you feel still requires action by the committee, or whether it has calmed down. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please feel free to move this comment if it belongs elsewhere The specific dispute which sparked this request is stale. I don't see any need to do anything retroactive to address such past disputes anymore - it would be punitive at this point - but I would still like a narrow and straightforward prospective clarification that in the future Ferrylodge's sanctions apply across all namespaces, if ArbCom feels this is appropriate. In this specific case the letter of the decision appears to be fairly important, and without a clarification my belief is that this will come up again. Just a simple change in the remedy from "articles" to "any page" would do the trick from my perspective. MastCell Talk 21:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please feel free to move this comment if it belongs elsewhere Mastcell is requesting a change in the remedy in my case. This should be supported by evidence. It would be helpful if Mastcell would please identify the specific diff that he thinks is most representative of such evidence, so that we could focus on it. Additionally, I would like to ask how to go about entirely erasing the remedy in my case. Presumably it was not intended to last for the rest of my life. The remedy has been in effect since last year, and there have not been any blocks or bans.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motions and voting

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking_3

Initiated by Avruch T at 01:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Avruch

I would ask the Committee to again reconsider the remedies of the Everyking3 case, including its recently passed motion responding to Everyking's appeal. I've written my concerns to the Committee mailing list, but the message is being held for moderator approval. The two motions considered by the Committee upon revisiting the remedies in this case both enjoyed the support of a majority of the Committee but are clearly contradictory.

Motion 1 eliminates all but one remedy and implies approval of the appeal, while Motion 2 leaves two remedies intact and applies an additional, unconsidered remedy that limits the ability of the subject of this case to file additional appeals and implicitly disapproves of the appeal as filed. The apparent contradiction and the fact that the outcome does not appear to take the requested outside views into account calls into question whether the Committee fully considered the elements of this case before Motion 2 was found to have passed.

With respect, Avruch T 01:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional, responding to Arbitrators comments so far

Comments so far have focused exclusively on the procedural issue of the motions and the order of passage. I don't disagree that this is partly the source of the confusion - observers not walking through the history to see the votes in progress will see that both motions pass, but only motion 2 is considered in effect. Still, if motion 1 passed second and represents a significant deviation from motion 2, the import of that should be considered.

Even so, the substantive issue appears to be more important to me - aside from which motion should have effect based on Committee procedure, it is clear regardless that both motions had a majority support of the same Committee and largely the same members and yet they clearly contradict eachother in meaning. Why would the same members support in one moment a continuation of only one remedy and a lifting of all other sanctions and in another moment support continuing two remedies and adding a third? There doesn't appear to be evidence indicating an abuse of the appeal process by Everyking, so what is the unenumerated justification for limiting his ability to appeal? Connections have been drawn to the US Supreme Court, where summary judgments without greater explanation are not uncommon - I think it would be a mistake for the Committee to adopt this habit, because the community of which the Committee is a part requires greater clarity.

Respectfully, Avruch T 16:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

It looks like three participating Arbitrators have expressed a willingness to revote the items of the motions separately, and three have not. What is the next step on this before it gets archived as stale? Avruch T 14:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Uninvolved User Jay*Jay

I do not recall ever having edited with Everyking and so can make no comment on his actions or the ArbCom sanctions. However, I am greatly concerned by the way the appeal has been handled and want to strongly endorse Avruch's request for a reconsideration. My concern is two-fold. Firstly, as Avruch has noted and the related AN discussion shows, the imposition of a new restriction on making an appeal appears punitive. The philosophy underling sanctions (bans, blocks, etc) is supposed to be to protect the encyclopedia and to prevent disruption. I fail to see how this restriction pursues either aim, as no suggestion of disruption has been made, and the ArbCom believed the appeal was sufficiently warranted to debate and pass two separate ammednment motions, both of which reduce the sanctions on Everyking. The situation is akin to a court finding for the plaintiff and then ordering that the plaintiff pay costs for both parties. It is, frankly, bizarre.

My second concern relates to the contradiction which has also been noted elsewhere. This diff includes the entire appeal case immediately prior to it being archived. I suggest that the summary of the motion presented on the case page and the relating modification is in error, for the following reasons:

  1. Motions require a majority of 8 to pass, and motion 1 passes 8-2 with 1 abstention - there is no requirement, as I understand it, for a net vote of 8, merely a simple majority.
  2. Motion 2 is recorded as passing 11-1. However, this count is only correct if Newyorkbrad's vote is taken as an 'oppose'. His vote actually stated that it "should be counted as an "oppose" if both motions have a majority and the question is which one has more support" - showing that the passing of motion 1 was recognised.
  3. Four ArbCom members (Newyorkbrad, FT2, Paul August, and Sam Blacketer) expressly noted a preference for motion 1 over motion 2. Although only Newyorkbrad expressly noted that such a preference means opposition of motion 2 if motion 1 passes, a reasonable interpretation (in light of motion 1's passing) would be that motion 2 actually has 8 supports and 4 neutral/oppose votes.

Possible resolutions: There are several ways in which this contradiction can be resolved. They include:

  • Passing only motion 1 as motion 2 has more opposition than does motion 1 - problematic, as it remains the case that both should pass.
  • Asking Deskana, who expressly states that "either is fine", to form a preference, thus supporting only one motion and being neutral or opposing the other - thereby resolving which motion passes.
  • Ask for reconsideration by some or all of Kirill, FloNight, and Blnguyen, each of whom also supported both motions, to express a preference for a single motion and neutrality or opposition towards the other - which would also resolve which motion passes.
  • I do not see any additional clarity is gained by reconsideration by any of the four remaining ArbCom members who voted (UnivitedCompany, Charles Matthews, bainer, and jpgordon), as each has indicated a clear preference (either in comment or by vote) for motion 2 over motion 1. However, there were (at the time of the appeal) three other active ArbCom members who have noted voted and who could. I am not sure that this would be helpful, as no vote by them could alter the fact that both motions received the support needed to pass.

I strongly believe that the appeal should be reopened, as the present outcome is not only unjust and inequitable (in adding a new appeal restriction), but also seriously flawed by internal contradiction. Two conflicting motions should not ever be passed, and the need for clarity for the community strongly indicates that ArbCom should re-open the appeal to resolve the ambiguity as a matter of urgency. The are obviously other possible appraoches to providing clarity that the Committee could adopt - simply holding a fresh vote on each motion would be one, provided members recognised that supporting both motions is unsatisfactory if suitabke caveats are not noted. I have no stake in what solution is adopted, although believe that the appeal restriction appears punitive and unjustified; however, I implore the Committee members to act to provide clarity. Jay*Jay (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I note that there has also been discussion here on Thatcher's talk page about the closure and the interpretation of two passing motions. That discussion further serves to highlight the unsatisfactory and subjective approach applied in situations such as this. I have absolutely no doubt that Thatcher acted in good faith in trying to resolve the situation, but it is impossible to escape the conclusion that ArbCom passed two contradictory motions. Leaving the interpretation of that action to the discretion of a single Clerk - who in this case chose to disregard a passed motion - is unacceptable. Wjbscribe's analysis below shows that the opposite result can be obtained by another reasonable interpretation of passing two motions - actually applying both, in either sequence. The fault here lies squarely with ArbCom, as it was their actions that have created the ambiguity. It is up to ArbCom to resolve this problem. I have proposed several possible approaches. Wjbscribe provides another, in that ArbCom could simply affirm that both motions passed and that both must be applied. Newyorkbrad provides another, in that individual votes could be held on each individual modification. Please, re-open the appeal, and act to fix the problem that you have created. It is reasonable to leave to admin discretion and community interpretation what enforcement might be required for any breach of an ArbCom-imposed sanction, but it is not reasonable to require discretion of a Clerk or anyone else be used in determination of what are those sanctions. ArbCom acts careful to avoid such ambiguity by passing only single and unambiguous sanctions in its cases, and has erred in not acting carefully with respect to the motions in the appeal. Rectifying this error is necessary and urgent, as the present ambiguity is unacceptable. Jay*Jay (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Comment from Thatcher: The problem is concisely illustrated when Thatcher sighes that the two motions were mutually incompatible, they could not both pass. The problem, of course, is that they did both pass. The correctness or otherwise of any analysis of conditional votes is irrelevant. Analysis should never be required to interpret whether a binding decision was made, and such analysis cannot alter the unarguable fact that both motions did pass. The fact that the present analysis results in the application of a new restriction on Everyking simply makes the situation worse. The origin of the ambiguity lies in ArbCom passing contradictory motions, and only ArbCom can address the situation. Jay*Jay (talk) 08:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WJBscribe

I emailed the following analysis to ArbCom yesterday:

My understanding of the process is as follows: 8 Arbitrators is a majority. Proposals supported by 8 or more Arbitrators pass.

In this case, two motions were supported by 8 or more Arbitrators, therefore logically both must pass. A majority of Arbitrators have supported lifting the following sanctions against Everyking through their support of motion #1:

  1. Remedy 5 of EK
  2. The harassment ban and terms of enforcement in the July 2006 amendment to EK3

It does not seem to matter which motion passed first. If motion #1 passed first, these remedies no longer existed to be "continued" by motion #2. If motion #2 passed first, these remedies were then terminated by the passing of motion #1. The latter scenario seems to have occured here as motion #2 reached a majority first. Motion #1 should not have been ignored simply because motion #2 passed as it too enjoyed a majority. The fact that one motion enjoyed more support than the other does not seem relevant as the criteria for passage is reaching a majority, not the greatest majority. Looked at another way, if motion #1 were voted on now and reached the same level, it would clearly take effect.

In this case, it seems to me that both motions have passed and come into effect by result of being supported by 8 Arbitrators. The only remedy Everyking therefore remains subject to is: Remedy X of EK3 (non-interaction and non-commenting on Snowspinner/Phil Sandifer). And he is (through motion #2) restricted from appealing that remedy more than once a year.

Therefore I believe a further post to AN is required informing the community of the effects of motion #1 passing (that two of the sanctions continued by motion #2 are now terminated), and that Everyking should be notified that the sanctions against him are further reduced by the success of that motion. The present result means that although Everyking gained the support of a majority of the full Committee for lifting those 2 sanctions, he remains subject to them. I do not believe this to be a fair result. WjBscribe 04:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by David Mestel

In my view, the most significant problem here resulted from the fact that the motions were listed as "1" and "2", rather than "1" and "1.1", as is the norm where there are multiple alternative proposals (see, for example, here), and the correct action would have been to renumber them accordingly; perhaps it would be a good idea for the committee to make clear that it is happy for clerks to do this when proposals are clearly incompatible (such as these proposals in Ehud Lesar), subject obviously to reversion if arbitrators disagree. Notwithstanding this, there is considerable ambiguity as to how alternative proposals should be resolved, and I would respectfully commend to the committee my proposals here, subject to rewriting for clarity. I understand and accept Newyorkbrad's point that they are rather complex, but in my submission this should not be too much of a problem, since they are to be applied by clerks who presumably have studied and understood them, and any editors who object to or are puzzled by a result are also likely to have sufficient motivation also to read and understand them, or, alternatively, to ask for explanation. In any event, it is clearly more transparent to have a concrete though somewhat complex set of written procedures, rather than to rely on unwritten practice and individual judgement.

In these particular circumstances, it is my view that, in the absence of concrete guidelines, Thatcher's judgement of arbitrators' preference was correct (although it might perhaps have been preferable to hold off on closing and seek further guidance), and, if the committee shares this view, it is therefore not necessary to re-open the appeal, and the best course of action would be to adopt a summary motion confirming motion 2 in the appeal, or, in the case of the contrary view, one disapproving the outcome and re-opening the appeal. David Mestel(Talk) 16:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from AGK

Whilst I rarely make comment on matters in cases out with those I am directly involved in, I feel compelled to make public my feelings on this matter. The underlying problems in this case are somewhat simple, and easily remediable:

  • Confusion exists over what the Committee's consensus on this matter is
  • Editors involved in the case, as well as uninvolved users, are of the opinion that the decision that has been posted differs from the consensus of the Committee as a whole, as measured as the vote held on the matter

Respectively, these issues can be addressed very simply:

  • The Committee as a whole (rather than individual arbitrators) clarify its intended decision in this matter,
  • If the intended decision differs from that which has recently been implemented, then the matter be re-opened and consensus re-gauged through the medium of a vote.

My view on whether re-opening the matter for Committee consideration remains unspecified, as I cannot say for certain what the Committee's consensus is, hence my call for a statement from it as a whole on the matter. I reiterate: a statement representing the consensus of the Arbitrators, and released on behalf of the Committee as a whole is necessary, both to clarify the circumstances once-and-for-all, and to provide a basis by which the decision of whether to reopen (and hence re-consider) the matter can be made. AGK (contact) 18:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Zocky

Clerks already write up a summary of each case and post it to the parties' pages. Maybe we could avoid these situations if they wrote the summary before closing the case, so that they have a chance to notice inconsistencies and ask arbitrators for additional information? Zocky | picture popups 20:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In full-fledged cases, a clerk or an arbitrator prepares an "implementation note" at the bottom of the proposed decision page before the motion to close is completed, which allows any ambiguities or anomolies to be identified and addressed and serves exactly the purpose you suggest. That practice has not been used in the "requests for clarifications/motions in closed cases" section where the procedure and format is generally much simpler, but I agree that is a useful suggestion for more complicated situations like this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

The two motions were mutually incompatible, they could not both pass. Note that full cases have a motion to close phase with implementation notes, this gives the Arbitrators a chance to adjust their votes so that their intentions are correctly carried out. Open motions do not have separate votes to close and are usually enacted 24 hours after a majority is apparent. The usual method of analyzing conditional votes was applied. Several other approaches are discussed on my talk page. Thatcher 06:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' views and discussion

  • Comment: There has been detailed discussion from time to time as to how we should decide which alternative proposal passes when multiple proposals on the same topic receive the required majority. In past instances, there have been a couple of times when it was not at all clear which of two alternatives has been adopted, which have been generally been resolved when one or two arbitrators struck their support from their second choices so that the outcome was clarified. Even now, it's not clear to me whether in a case with a required majority of 7, if proposal 1.1 has 8 supports and no opposes, and alternative proposal 1.2 has 9 supports and no opposes but three of the supports are labelled "second choice," which one is enacted. And if one allows for oppose votes also, then it gets even more complicated. A month or so ago, one of our most senior Clerks wrote a note in userspace about how we might address these situations (see, User:David.Mestel/ArbComvoting), which would eliminate these ambiguities, but at the time I judged the proposal to be a bit too complicated to recommend adoption. (paragraph) With respect to these particular motions, a further complication is that the arbitrators felt compelled either to vote for my "motion 1," as a whole, or Jpgordon's alternative motion 2, also as a whole. There were differences not only in the specific sanctions that I thought could be lifted but that Jpg thought should be kept in force, but also in other nuances of the wording (my motion was a narrative with admonitions and observations; Jpg's was just a list, and some arbs might not have cared for my verbosity or my dicta). It's a commonplace in the legal and political science literature that the order of voting and whether issues are voted on jointly and singly can sometimes decide the result of the voting. This has happened in several significant U.S. Supreme Court cases (I've actually been researching a real-world article on the subject; boring details on request; compare also Arrow's theorem). The fairest thing to do here, if the committee determines that there is a problem here that ought to receive further attention in the interests of fairness or the appearance of fairness, would be to vote on the termination or continuation of each of the sanctions as to which the two motions are in disagreement, individually. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The statement 'support as second preference' means that I supported motion 2, but expressed a preference for motion 1 to be adopted if the two emerged with equal approval. In this case they did not have equal approval; motion 1 attracted opposition which was not present for motion 2. In that case the support for motion 2 still stands. The support for either motion was because both took the Everyking case forward by lifting some restrictions, but maintaining some in force; the reason for indicating a preference for motion 1 was because it did not expressly continue a provision which was common sense, would not normally need to be stated, and was difficult to enforce. However a preference for support is not a conditional oppose. Had I intended that meaning, I would have written it explicitly. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Though the motion was closed a little faster than I might have preferred (specifically because of this fuss), the result is consistent with ArbCom's methods in the past. When alternate proposals are put forward, and both pass, the one with the most support wins. In this case, it's even simpler. Open motions, in general, are considered passed as soon as they are supported by a majority of arbitrators. Motion 2 thus could have been considered passed and immediately enacted by the clerks after this vote by Charles Matthews, which made the vote for the first motion 6-2-1 and the vote for the second motion 8-0. The clerks wisely waited, since six and five arbitrators, respectively, had not made their opinions known. In the ensuing three days, the second motion gained four more votes; the first gained two. The consensus of the committee was quite clear and unambiguous at that point; of the two alternate motions, the one with the most support carried. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In answer to Avruch: my own interpretation of the meaning of people voting to support both motions is "Either one is exactly fine with me; I'll go along with the consensus of the Committee". This is based on the assumption that all were aware the two were alternates. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it was pretty clear the two motions were alternates, especially given your comment in opposing my motion that you were offering your own, and the number of references either to "second choice" or "either is fine" or whatever. The fundamental problem may still be, as I observed above, that people were given the choice of voting for your proposal or mine or both or neither, rather than parsing the specifics of each one. Of course any arbitrator could have asked for a division of the question and no one did, but even so. How can division of the question be a redlink? Where are our parliamentary law and procedure articles? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We have it at division (vote) :) --bainer (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no, "division (vote)" or "division of the assembly" refers to the voting process itself, in a legislature or parliamentary body. A request or motion for a "division of the question" (or "to divide the question") is a request that separate, divisible aspects or parts of a main motion be voted on separately. This is definitely going on my wiki-to-do list. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the confusion here is that, as David Mestel observes, these alternative wordings were labelled "1" and "2" and not "1" and "1.1", as is commonly the practice. Clearly none of us intended that these should be anything other than alternatives. I vote that Josh goes home and practices his numbers some more :) --bainer (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To exonerate Josh, I will plead guilty to being the person who introduced the complex numeration scheme "1", "2" into this discussion. Per my comment above, everyone understood these motions were alternatives and I don't believe this contributed in any significant way to the situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understood from Josh's comment these were alternatives. I also understood the question behind them to be - certain matters were agreed redundant (or emerged as such by consensus), but a couple of the restrictions were not clearly agreed redundant and the decision was centered around whether those should be continued at this time. This was my reading of the difference between 1 and 2, and I noted more support seemed to coalesce for the view that considered they should continue.

I am happy to see it re-considered if that would help, since a decision must not only be considered, but must visibly be seen to be clear in its decision where possible. In editorial disputes that often means "go and re-check consensus on it", as in last month's rollback RFAR decline. I'm willing to take the same view here as well. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wait a sec. Have any arbitrators expressed any concern that the result is incorrect or did not reflect our consensus? I mean, we're right here, we're paying attention to this page, it's been brought up on the mailing list, it was brought up on AN/I, and I haven't heard so much as a suggestion from anyone in ArbCom that this was not the appropriate outcome. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there were two motions, each being considered in toto, the conclusion that motion 2 superseded motion 1 is certainly defensible. However, I can't be sure whether a majority of the continuing restrictions that your motion and mine disagreed on, might have been terminated if the points had been voted on item-by-item. If Everyking were able to come back in a reasonable time and raise the individual items again (and we would re-vote now knowing that it should be done differently), that would be okay. But the last point of your motion also locks him out of making another appeal for another full year, and given the ambiguity of the result on the current appeal, that does bother me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that bothers me too. Paul August ☎ 05:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lesson here on "block voting" alternatives which are similar but not identical. I'm happy to do it again more "item by item", simply because although I think it was closed according to intent, it's in a way, better to revote it than to have uncertainty. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After considering this for some time, and in view of the dispute over the format of the voting that arose through no fault of Everyking, I have concluded that it will be in the interest of actual and perceived fairness to offer new motions. This assumes that Everyking would like for the matter to be reconsidered at this point. The motions will be formatted so that the continuation of each sanction still in force following the adoption of motion 2 would be voted upon individually. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Digwuren

Statement by Moreschi

I'm requesting clarification as regards this FoF and this remedy. I've just blocked said user, RJ CG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for edit-warring yet again. Time for the "summary bans" bit to be enforced? Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 23:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that reminds me: if an arbitrator/checkuser with knowledge of the Estonian sock stable could figure out who on earth 84.50.127.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), also blocked for his part in the edit-war, actually is, this might be helpful. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 23:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Martintg

I see that Kirill is wishing to apply additional remedies from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles. What's the scope? I don't think it is necessary in Estonia related articles, there has hardly been any activity, let alone disputes, with only User:RJ CG popping his head in briefly after a long break before being promptly blocked for two weeks for 3RR. As I said previously, Wikiproject Estonia has been chilled to the bone with most of the editors leaving the project, with no significant articles created or expanded, except for football it seems. I suppose if you are going to turn the screws even tighter, how about also adding:

  • The applicable scope: Eastern Europe broadly defined, or just Estonia related articles?
  • The definition of uninvolved admin for enforcement from that case as well Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Uninvolved_administrators
  • Lifting of the ban for Digwuren. Nobody from either side wanted year long bans. Given Digwuren only joined around April 2007, had not been previously subjected any other genuine dispute resolution attempts before being taken to ArbCom (obviously Irpen's opinions carry a lot of weight with ArbCom), this newbie certainly has been bitten hard. We need at least one person from Estonia who can speak the language and willing to contribute meaningfully to articles.

Thanks. Martintg (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Biophys

Unlike Israeli-Palestinian conflict, "Eastern European subjects" are not clearly defined. Does this include every Russia-related topic, like Russia-China relations or Soviet intelligence operations in the United States? If we want to follow the "Israeli-Palestinian" remedy, the "conflict area" should be clearly defined, say "Russian-Polish" or "Russian-Estonian" conflicts. Anything that is not area of conflict (e.g. articles on Russian-Turkish subjects or internal Russian affairs) do not belong there. Could you please clarify which subjects are covered?Biophys (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, I would highly appreciate any answer. ArbCom members are votiong below, but about what?Biophys (talk)

Statement by User:Vecrumba

I would like to know better what's being defined as the scope of applicability and what, if any, specific history of warnings is being proposed as moving sanctions to the "next level." My concern is that as the scope is expanded, "uninvolved" will also extend to "uninformed"--there has to be substantial awareness of editors' past histories in order to draw an objective judgement. If you just go by who accuses whom in the latest trail, it's quite possible that all that happens is a blanket conviction of the guilty and the innocent--if you come in on a fight, how do you know who started it? The notion that someone who is attacked is just going to sit and smile and assume good faith is only good for one round of edits; if an editor persists in behavior that is taken as an attack, the attacked editor(s) will respond and should not be held equally to blame for any escalation. —PētersV (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a code of etiquette. I have debated (civilly) paid propaganda pushers by sticking to sources, so I know it is possible not to escalate into conflict. What has worked is...
  • Always stick to what a source says. This is not as simple as it sounds, I've had to buy $150 sources (not even available at the library) just to prove they were being quoted correctly, literally, but being grossly misrepresented to push a patently false POV.
  • Corollary: Article content should be based on what sources say, not on what editors interpret sources to say. Editors have summarized content coming to different conclusions regarding content in characterizing reputable sources which differ from the authors' own summaries appearing within those self-same materials.
  • Corollary: Use the same terminology in the article as in reputable sources. For example, neither embellish nor dilute words such as "occupied." That "occupy" can be taken to be "accusatory" is irrelevant, if it is what the reputable source uses, that is what the Wikipedia article uses.
  • Discuss any major changes prior to making them, whether additions, modifications, or deletions. If consensus is not reached, the change is not made. If consensus is reached, then changes are implemented. Delete first, discuss later (in the area of articles where there is significant polarization of position or initial "disapprovals" are lodged by historically known antagonists) is looked upon as an act of bad faith, that is, preemptive removal of content without discussion or consensus is viewed as edit warring. —PētersV (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Relata refero

I have recently stumbled across Denial of the Holodomor, which I discovered while cleaning up Historical revisionism, and am startled by the level of hostility and accusations of bad faith that seem to be acceptable in this area, even towards those manifestly uninvolved. I would like some firm statements adjuring editors to read and follow WP:OR and WP:AGF, as well as some sense that adminstrators will be able to evaluate those who are 'involved' accurately, and that there will be some appealing of that judgment. Relata refero (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that I assume that the area of "conflict" is all those articles that have as their subjects the history and current status of the relations between Russia and the former states of the USSR/Warsaw Pact. Relata refero (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd mention regarding Denial of the Holodomor that several editors including myself were reprimanded when Gatoclass made some assertions which led to a degenerating spiral we could not escape from. All participants were "put on the list" by Thatcher. I disagreed with Thatcher's conclusion regarding my personal editorial conduct, however, I still prefer that to the alternative.
  You're only coming to the discussion there on what I think is its third round. I completely agree that the general "divide" is along versions of history which echo Sovietism and versions by the countries formerly subjugated under Sovietism. I say "versions" because basic facts are often in dispute, they are not "views" or "POVs" regarding a common set of facts or circumstances. —PētersV (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It must be said that "stumbled across Denial of the Holodomor" consisted of Relata refero initially deleting huge sections of referenced content on February 12th from that article without first discussing the issues or obtaining consensus on the talk page. Not the best way to introduce one self to the other editors of any article, however Relata refero's edit history only goes back to October 11, 2007, so perhaps it was inexperience. Despite this, the other editors have been exceedingly patient and civil with him/her. Martintg (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See what I mean?
Yes, the article's one of the worst imaginable, and I acted on WP:BRD. About "exceedingly patient and civil"... wow. What a mess EE articles must be if someone thinks that was "exceedingly patient and civil". Strengthens the case for stringent restrictions, I'd say? Relata refero (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we can continue on the article page. It's only the "worst imaginable" partly because (I believe) you believe it is something in scope which it is not, so perhaps we can keep disparaging Q.E.D. remarks to article talk where editors would expect to find them to comment on them. :-) Was there bolding I missed? PētersV (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(cross posted with additions) Mass deletion of EE content is most typically (historically) associated with "I don't like it" edit wars, so I would ask editors to be sensitive to that and discuss prior to deletion, not delete as an act of improvement and then (appear to deign to) discuss. Because of past experiences, that sort of editorial conduct is looked upon as not acting in good faith. Generally speaking, EE article etiquette is to discuss major changes, additions, and deletions prior; to never impose what is written elsewhere in Wikipedia as a "model" or "standard" but to stick to sources, etc. —PētersV (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even unreliable ones...
We shouldn't make excuses for departures from core Wikipedia policies, but look for ways to enforce them. Relata refero (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

I have read this but am recusing from commenting due to my involvement in that case. I will ask the others to look over this. --Deskana (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, comment is probably best given in the first instance by arbitrators who were active when that case was being heard. Deferring to othes to clarify the above. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "summary bans" bit predates some of the more useful methods we've developed since then; I'd prefer not to funnel everything through a bottleneck by having the Committee do everything itself, but rather to take the standard approach we've used for other conflict areas recently. See my motion below. Kirill 13:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am recusing myself due to my prior involvement as an administrator. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motions and voting

Motion:

The general restriction in the Digwuren case is replaced with the following:
1) Discretionary sanctions
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.
2) Appeal of discretionary sanctions
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.
3) Other provisions
This shall not affect any sanctions already imposed under the old remedies. All sanctions imposed under these provisions are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

  1. I remain convinced that this is the best solution, at least until the working group develops something more useful. Kirill 13:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. This is more helpful to those who find themselves involved in editing disputes over Eastern Europe, whether as participant or administrator. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support so as to conform the rules for discretionary sanctions in this area to the ones we have developed in more recent cases, and without prejudice to any steps we might take later based on recommendations of the working group. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Marting reminds me on my talk that some of his points from above have not been addressed. Would urge that the motion be clarified to address them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=198598732&oldid=198524610

Leave a Reply