Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Requests for arbitration


Enforcement of Climate Change discretionary sanctions

Initiated by Cla68 (talk) at 00:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • I don't see where Stephan has been notified of the Climate Change probation, but he has notified many others of it. Here are just a few: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Request for him to recuse as an involved admin: (thread)

Statement by Cla68

User:Stephan Schulz is an editor heavily involved in AGW articles. He is also an admin. As far as I know, he has not used his admin tools related to those articles, except perhaps to block Scibaby accounts after sockpuppet investigations. I believe he crossed the line today during a climate change probation enforcement request. The enforcement request concerned Ratel in an AGW article that Stephan is also involved in [5] [6]. During the enforcement request, and after Ratel notified him (among a few others) of the request, Stephan commented in the admin-only, "results" section of the request, where admin actions, including possible sanctions, are discussed concerning the parties to the enforcement request. Note that only admins are allowed to comment in that section. This means that Stephan was acting as an enforcing admin in an action in which he was definitely involved. I request ArbCom review.

Re:Short Brigade's statement below...if he has a concern with Lar, I suggest he open a separate request for review. Lar has not been involved in the enforcement request at issue here. Also, I and Short Brigade did not cooperate or "co-file" this request together. It was just me asking for a review of Stephan's actions as an admin. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to SirFozzie and Shell Kinney...if the AGW probation forum is going to work, it's got to be tight, and I mean tight. AGW is one of the most contentious and problemmatic areas in Wikipedia right now. That means that everything, including admin involvement needs to be strictly by the rules if the probation process is going to have credibility and be effective. Stephan Schulz cannot act as an admin in enforcement actions related to this area. As you're apparently agreeing, his remarks need to stay out of the "admin only" section. He does that, there's no problem. Cla68 (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

I share Cla68's concern about the integrity of the probationary sanctions. Admins enforcing sanctions should not only be uninvolved in a narrow, technical sense but must have the community's confidence that they are truly uninvolved and impartial.

In this regard the conduct of User:Lar while taking part in enforcing the sanctions also raises concern. He has referred to a group of editors involved in the sanctions area as a "science cabal" and "socially inept,"[7] which may not violate the narrow legalistic definition of "uninvolved" but but does not inspire confidence that sanctions will be administered impartially. Of perhaps greater concern, User:dave souza opposed Lar's recent steward reconfirmation on Meta.[8] Lar then threw these words back in his face on the probation enforcement page.[9] Editors should be free to express their opinions in one venue without fearing retaliation in a different, unrelated venue.

We all have an interest in the probationary sanctions being effective. Sanctions work best if those administering them are clearly seen to be fair, impartial, and uninvolved. I request that the committee lay down crystal-clear rules for "uninvolved" administrators to avoid future episodes of the kind that Cla68 and I have noted.

Regarding Cla68's statment above the concerns he and I have raised have a clear thread in common; i.e., conduct of administrators on a particular enforcement page. I thought it was logical to consider them together so that the principles and concerns they have in common could be addressed in a consistent way. If the Committee or a clerk feels it would be best to consider them separately I will of course split off my statement into a separate action. (I really don't want this to turn into a threaded discussion, but since Cla68 raised the issue I thought it best to explain my reasoning for joining this into one case.)

Statement by User:Stephan Schulz

Butterfly. Wheel. CET. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Ratel

  • I am not an expert in these matters, but it appears that according to the way the rules are written, SS has not breached any provisions. ► RATEL ◄ 02:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly endorse Literaturegeek's comment below. This must be done, sooner rather than later. ► RATEL ◄ 15:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:ATren

Here are Stephan Schulz's top ten articles edited:

  1. 505 - Global warming
  2. 138 - Global warming_controversy
  3. 98 - Global cooling
  4. 91 - Scientific opinion on climate_change
  5. 81 - The Great Global Warming Swindle
  6. 78 - Effects of global warming
  7. 71 - Kyoto Protocol
  8. 63 - List of scientists opposing the mainstream scienti...
  9. 51 - Waterboarding
  10. 49 - An Inconvenient Truth

All but #9 are directly related to the AGW debate. He is not uninvolved. ATren (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Lar's level of involvement in global warming, I have searched his entire contribution history (>24000 edits) and I haven't found a single edit to any climate or AGW (or any related) article in his entire history. Lar is uninvolved. ATren (talk) 06:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Awickert

Both sides seem to think that they are in the right per the letter of the law. Seems like a case in which clarification is needed, and nothing more. Awickert (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZP5*

Admin Stephan Schulz is heavily involved in the Climate Change articles under probation. I have several disputes underway on talk pages with this admin. I don't recall him applying his admin capabilities; however, to avoid becoming analogous to an activist judge, the admin should clearly abstain from any administrative related activities in the Climate Change articles, unless following another admin's objectively decided instructions. This admin requires clear oversight in these articles, power has been abused in the Request for Enforcement proceedings, and this should not be allowed to continue. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell

I would urge that when the Committee inevitably takes up the climate-change disaster, it should choose the terms of the case carefully. This isn't it. The prior efforts at "dispute resolution" are woefully cursory, and there is clearly no emergency requiring that this go straight to ArbCom. Hell, there hasn't even been an administrative action to discuss - this appears to literally be a fight over the placement of a comment that has somehow reached ArbCom.

If I'm being uncharitable, I think the Committee does share some blame for actively propagating multiple, and sometimes widely disparate, definitions of the term "uninvolved". Be that as it may, Stephan should recuse himself. If not, the Committee should pass a motion officially moving his comment one section up on the enforcement page. That would be a ridiculous use of everyone's time, but still preferable to the alternative of an actual case over this. MastCell Talk 03:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mackan79

This is certainly something for ArbCom to clarify. Stephan states that he is entitled to comment as an uninvolved administrator because, under the sanctions, "uninvolved" is defined as someone who is not in an immediate dispute with the sanctioned editor. Presumably this has nothing to do with the noticeboard, but has simply to do with when an admin is permitted to sanction an editor. So, Stephan could sanction Ratel under the rules despite supporting him in any particular dispute. Certainly it cannot mean that he is otherwise free to comment as "uninvolved" when in fact he is heavily involved.

Stephan's comments are also offensive. In response to my report regarding repeated reverting and an unwillingness to engage in discussion by User:Ratel, Ratel posted a series of utterly false and baseless accusations, including that I "despise" a writer whom I have never criticized in any way and do not in the least, and that I am on a long term anti-science campaign.[10] No diffs were provided. Administrator LessHeard vanU commented that he found the response "startling."[11] Stephan responds to LessHeard that "AGF is not a suicide pact."[12] This, from a thoroughly involved administrator who does not mention his involvement in the very content dispute giving rise to the request. This is not what these pages need. Mackan79 (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to SirFozzie: Perhaps you follow this board, but the structure is quite rigid. On most of the page, editors can post as they please. In the "uninvolved administrator" section, admins hash out a consensus over the appropriate result. In fact I am not sure any sanctions have been concluded without agreement from all admins posting in that section. If Stephan can post there as a heavily involved editor, can others also respond? It is not simply a matter of where he places the comment, but whether he sits on the panel that resolves disputes in which he is involved. Mackan79 (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification about involvement

Stephan was involved in the very dispute that gave rise to the request. He made the initial edit to the article here. He then left three comments challenging specific points,[13][14][15] each of which were specifically answered,[16][17][18] but did not clarify his position further. This is precisely the ongoing dispute that gave rise to the enforcement request.[19] Mackan79 (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vsmith

Why is this here? First from [20]:

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute).

Stephan Schulz has not "imposed sanctions", only commented on a case as an admin. By the definition quoted above he appears to be not involved unless it can be shown that he is engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions.
And secondly, what prior dispute resolution steps have been used?
Vsmith (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

It appears to me that the serious nature of the concerns raised by Short Brigade Harvester Boris may mean that a case or motion is the only means of resolving the issue (unless an arbitrator wants to try another informal "back off"). Maybe a review of probation is also in order. But frankly, I don't agree that this should be restricted to Stephen just because the filing party says so or because the functionary is the filing party's friend - the other concerns being raised cannot be resolved by any community mechanism, and moreover, those concerns are far more serious.

If Cla68 wanted a case limited to Stephen's action/comment/whatever, she should have filed a request for clarification, or better yet, actually engaged in dispute resolution before invoking any part of arbitration - the last resort. She did neither. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Random comment (not to arbitrators) - I might have been unclear, but I'm certainly not confused. The situation is indefinite and 1 year has passed; having reviewed SBHB's diffs, clearly nothing's changed. Frankly, I hope that he will not act as foolishly or act in such a misguided manner as the filing party did in making this case request. And...I would suggest against inviting another response. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Lar

Stephan Schulz is heavily involved in this area, as the list of his most edited articles given above shows. If this case is accepted or if requested, I will give diffs of his being questioned about his involvement showing general unhelpfulness and evasion. The butterfly comment is more of the same.

On the other hand, SBHB's thesis is frankly, off the mark. I have a viewpoint about these articles, but I'm not an involved admin as I never edit in the space. I just happen to disagree with SBHB, WMC, et al about whether their editing in this space is uniformly positive and proper or not. That apparently got me a fair number of opposes in my recent confirmation, as apparently holding a view that the science club is less than lily white is verboten.

As always, I welcome review of my actions. But I'd urge ArbCom to clarify this matter, and do so in a way that doesn't hamper continued enforcement. I think my enforcement actions have been pretty even handed. Finally, Ncmvocalist appears to be a bit confused. ++Lar: t/c 04:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS... SBHB says "Editors should be free to express their opinions in one venue without fearing retaliation in a different, unrelated venue." I absolutely agree. Too bad it didn't work out that way. My editing on en:wp, and my views about en:wp specific matters have little or nothing to do with my exemplary record as a steward, but I nevertheless got lots of retaliation anyway. So I'm curious what SBHB means there. Maybe it applies to him and his club, but not me? ++Lar: t/c 05:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PPS... This is not the first time Stephan Schulz had to have remarks moved out of the uninvolved admin section. Do we need a whole case? Nope, not necessarily. But apparently Stephan Schulz needs a strong reminder that his remarks don't belong there, in that section, and he's involved, and needs to dial the snark way down. As strong a reminder as necessary. Hipocrite: As for what to call this group of editors, I'm open. Club, unless I'm recalling incorrectly, is the term Tony used on my talk and it seemed to be accepted. You used "bunker guys". What would you call this bunch of vested contributors? As for the steward matter, you're confused. The long knives were brought out in that... by many factions annoyed by my willingness to speak truth to power. None of which had anything to do with stewardry. ++Lar: t/c 13:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to make this threaded but... Hipocrite: as I pointed out on my talk previously, I'm an "editor who supports the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming". I just don't support all the tactics used by those who regularly edit in this area. (which I am not one of) On either side. So that name won't work. Let's take this to my talk if you want to belabor the point further. ++Lar: t/c 13:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BozMo

In practise there are only about six admins who are doing all the work on CC probation all of whom have a pretty accurate view on SS's involvement so this case seems to me to be more about form than of substance. On top of which the other admins could have dealt with it without bringing it here. The current rules are clear and I don't personally see enough grounds for changing them, but it cannot do much harm either way, except waste time. --BozMo talk 06:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Georgewilliamherbert

Reviewing the situation, as with much of the climate change conflict here, raises some questions. But - it appears premature to invoke Arbcom. An admin who is topic involved but not specific user involved commented - but didn't act - in a result section. The incident is perhaps not up to our best standards. But Arbcom should not be getting involved in admin actions which are not up to best standards. They should get involved if there's a clear breach, if there's very serious one time misconduct or ongoing patterns of serious misconduct. There is no allegation, and as far as I can tell no evidence or history, of ongoing misconduct, even if we assume the worst of this.

I urge Cla68 to abandon this and refile at ANI - the appropriate first venue. Comments here indicate a reasonable hearing and discussion can happen there, that the underlying concern isn't specious or misguided. But Arbcom needs to be limited to issues which are both serious and unable to be resolved elsewhere. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sarcastic comment by Hans Adler

There is no need for Arbcom to be surprised by this request. This is simply one of the fruits of the SlimVirgin decision and the recent clarification that you are prepared to enforce it under all circumstances. You have deprived arbitration enforcement of the normal corrective mechanisms that everybody on this wiki is used to. There is no reason to be surprised that some people exploit this unethically and others complain to the only instance that can fix such problems.

You have created an area of Wikipedia where you rule absolutely. Now you are asked to micro-manage it. Do it, or wait until the situation is so much out of control that you have to rethink arbitration enforcement completely. It's your choice. Hans Adler 07:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved) Literaturegeek

I think that the case should be accepted but not as currently named nor the current narrow scope. What is needed and has been needed for years now is a case investigating climate change articles, enforecement the whole heap. The sooner this drama associated with these articles is over the better. A case focusing on one admin or one aspect of this drama is just going to be chopping at branches of the issue rather than the root system of the issue. I would suggest a full case into climate change related issues. Singling out one admin/contributer at a time or one issue at a time is counter productive, may do more harm than good and is a waste of arbcom's and everyone elses time.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved Hipocrite

Lar's statement is directly backwards. His behavior on en-wp has a direct relationship towards his fitness as a steward. If he is a poor adminstrator of the CC probation, which I take no position on currently, then that would bear on his fitness as a steward.

However, ones voting on Lar's steward request has no bearing on their climate change editing. That Lar dosen't understand the difference between evaluating his fitness for a role based on his conduct elsewhere vs evaluating behavior based on their voting makes it clear that Lar is too emotionally attached to his Steward application to neutrally evaluate individuals who opposed him there in other venues.

An analogy would be opposing a hypothetical Hipocrite RFA based on my conduct in CC issues and, after that RFA passed, a hypothetical position that individuals who opposed me were ineligible to edit in CC areas due to their conflict of interest with me. It dosen't wash.

Further, it is incivil to call people members of a "club," in an obviously demeaning fashion. Hipocrite (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that when adressing people directly, you should refer to them by the names they have chosen. In this case, that would be "editors who support the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming." Your willingness to "speak truth to power," directly relates to your fitness for extra tools. For instance, I would oppose the RFA of otherwise qualified admin candidates who "speak truth to power," if the "truth" they are speaking is the "truth" of the relative importance of WP:BEFORE vs WP:BURDEN. I didn't have an opinion on your steward application then - I'd continue to have no opinion now, but I think that your taking SS's steward !vote and assaulting him with it on the CC pages was a gross abuse of power. Hipocrite (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Jehochman Why aren't more people being topic banned, then? Hipocrite (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by likely involved LessHeard vanU

This is the first time that Stephan Schulz has commented in the "admin section" of an enforcement request since I got involved. I don't see much difference in his comments than some other admins who apparently have a pro GW viewpoint, and nor do I believe that there is any apparent difficulty in communicating there. Unless SS or any other admin appears to disregard or veto a consensus (which is, of course, "Not A Vote") then I do not see any problem in them participating; it is only by their actions - or lack - that an issue that may require addressing would arise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fruity comments by Jehochman

This isn't an arbitration enforcement issue. There is a community sanction in effect, and several of us are attempting to enforce it. I'm fairly pessimistic about the outcome because every comment or action seems to provoke a disproportionate response by those editors participating in the underlying content dispute. The level of bad faith assuming, tendentious editing, and jockeying to get perceived opponents sanctioned is going up, rather than down. It's disheartening, and will eventually lead to arbitration. Jehochman Talk 20:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Hipocrite: More people aren't being topic banned because such action will invariably provoke a massive ruckus. There are multiple partisans on either site screaming their heads off about complicated editing patterns. Noticeboards are not particularly useful for resolving complex disputes with multiple parties. I believe arbitration is needed to sort out the naughty from the nice and restore order. Jehochman Talk 20:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tony Sidaway

This case looks set to be rejected, but I suppose I should try to make a constructive statement.

Someone said that this is the most contentious area on Wikipedia, or one of the most contentious. I'm not really that convinced. If in December it looked like turning into a pitched battle, the probation instituted in early January seems to have forestalled the melt-down, or at least not stopped the editing atmosphere cooling down considerably. Lots of very good editing is being done.

The science-heavy articles, already a jewel in Wikipedia's crown, continue to make incremental improvements, and the social, political and biographical articles are now being scrutinized to much more rigorous standards of sourcing than I had seen prior to the probation. In both areas constructive, if adversarial, criticism is leading to a strengthening of the content and sourcing.

There are signs that some editors have not taken this change on board. The battleground mentality persists in some quarters and I think this request can be seen as part of a skirmish in that warfare. But the community does seem to be applying the right amount of pressure on this field and the warriors are not really having much of a deleterious effect on article quality.

While it has been suggested that the warfare may drive away reasonable editors, a recent analysis by me of a particularly controversial article and talk page in this area, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, shows that a pretty high number of Wikipedians have edited or commented on that article, many making significant contributions. A very diverse range of views is evident in discussion and editing, so this article at least seems to be quite healthy. If anything, we're paying rather more attention to that area than is merited--in recent days the talk page views for that article equaled and then considerably exceeded article views. --TS 11:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by uninvolved Collect

Lar is correct in all particulars. This is a case which ought to be examined with the possibility of establishing rules concerning all "true believer" articles and their editors, and admins acting with regard thereto. There is no question, moreover, that advocacy articles, as a rule, tend to attract such conflicts, and WP, at some point, will have to address such issues in a general manner instead of seeking to stomp out one burning ember at a time. I am also concerned at flippant responses being used to apparently show a lack of respect for a proper process here, and suggest that such shows a major problem on WP. Collect (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by presumably involved WMC

Lar claims I'm an "editor who supports the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming". But there is no evidence for this. Not from his editing of articles; and there is no evidence from his admin-type activities. Lar feels the need to make these unsupported and apparently irrelevant claims; one wonders why William M. Connolley (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/1/0)

  • Recused on AGW stuff. Steve Smith (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok.. I'm going to sound a bit crass here.. but really? We're arguing over what section of an AE report someone can comment in? Really??? If there was an action taken that he shouldn't because he was an involved editor in the area, that's one thing.. but this? I'm tempted to decline, but I'm willing to be persuaded. SirFozzie (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline After further thought, an ArbCom request is overkill, a discussion on AN or ANI, and a suggestion that Stephan would be better served posting one section up would do Wikipedia so much more better then the nuclear hand grenade of filing an Arbitration request over this relatively small issue. SirFozzie (talk) 08:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline I worked on AE for quite some time and routinely saw involved admins (and sometimes even participants) leave comments in that section, similar to the way people sometimes edit someone else's section here. Since there are no clerks on AE, one of the uninvolved admins could simply move the comment if they felt it was a problem (and I've seen this done before when participants comment) but there is no reason for a case over something this trivial. Stephan should also take this as an indication that he should post above the decision area in his own section from now on if he needs to make comments on cases where he has been involved with the topic. Shell babelfish 11:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline I also worked in AE for a long time. Concur with Shell. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per preceding comments. Per Jehochman, I would suggest the community involved here aim to review what progress is being made following the probation that was put in place for this topic area (are things improving or getting worse?). But to avoid reviewing at a possible low point in the cycle, give some warning and then (in a few weeks?) review the entirety of the probationary period so far, not just recent events. If things are getting worse, then ask for arbitration, but please don't ask for arbitration without at least attempting to agree on a summary of how the community probation is progressing, and how it has worked so far. Carcharoth (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Nobody

Initiated by Flatscan (talk) at 05:51, 14 March 2010 (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 Flatscan

A Nobody has persisted in making copying edits that introduce attribution dependencies and interfere with the deletion process. Considering that AN continued with the similar merging during active AfDs until both the WT:AFD discussion and his RfC, Arbitration appears to be the only remaining venue.

Recent activity:

If this case's scope is confined to the copying issue, I would be satisfied by a motion that restricts A Nobody from any copying. While I have only tried to resolve the copying issue, I agree that it is merely one of a number of problematic behaviors and that a full case may be appropriate. Flatscan (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support an accept/defer motion as described in others' comments. Dispute resolution is a long process, but the ball shouldn't roll back. Flatscan (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
General clarification of already resolved issues

Both attribution (WP:Copying within Wikipedia, a guideline) and merging during AfD (WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion, fifth/last bullet) have been resolved. {{Copied}} is transcluded on around 1000 pages. Flatscan (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Hersfold

A Nobody's problematic edits form a long pattern with minor variations. For example, one type of edit that he has used is a faux copy: contribute nearly identical new content to multiple articles, but label the later edit(s) as merges. After the restriction on merging during AfD was strengthened, he continued these edits, only not during AfDs, an evasion of the letter of the restriction (raised 8 November 2009, in list above). The "Bulletproof" item is another instance of this with a minor wording change, "expanded using some information from Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess".

WP:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Hendrix, April 2009, listed in the RfC

I can expand on the other recent items if necessary. Flatscan (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding whether issues will remain (to Steve Smith)

I have not seen any other editor use similar types of edits. I have seen merges done during AfDs occasionally, but nothing like an extended pattern. Flatscan (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Party 2}

Comment by Fran Rogers

For well over a year now, A Nobody (formerly "Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles") has been evading any and all attempts to discuss or scrutinize his behavior or start the dispute resolution process, by claiming convenient reasons to disappear as soon as an AN/I discussion or RfC on his behavior is attempted. For example:

A Nobody has consistently gone out of his way to make dispute resolution with him impossible. I urge the Committee to accept this case. Fran Rogers❇ 07:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, after I posted this comment A Nobody posted a long "farewell" message in his userspace confirming that he does have a sick dog, had diverticulitis, etc.; taking potshots at myself and some other users; and also claiming that stalkers trashed his car (whether this was supposed to be connected to the time he vanished claiming real-world harassment and returned with a sockpuppet, I don't know.) Since he directly criticized me in the message, I felt compelled to respond:
Missing the point

Whether you're actually sick, have a sick dog, are busy in real life, isn't the issue: it's that you continuously cite real-world issues to tug at the community's heartstrings and avoid scrutiny. Since you still have the time to participate in Wikipedia's bureaucratic morass, be involved at AfD, and snipe at other users who you consider to have wronged you, clearly you should also have time to respond to criticism and dispute resolution requests. Yet every time you've taken an absence due to real-world concerns right after a discussion come up - even if, by sheer coincidence, you honestly couldn't participate in Wikipedia when they came up - you've consistently made no effort to address those concerns or participate in those discussions upon your return. The community can be very empathetic to real-world concerns, but to abuse that empathy on multiple occasions to escape scrutiny is wholly inappropriate.

On a personal level I've also had quite enough of the sniping you've been taking at me recently, both on this page and when you tried to request I be desysopped without notifying me. Yes, as I'd locked myself out of my account at the time, when I was concerned that you were claiming false credentials, I had to do so as an IP address. And I thought a user whose activities closely paralleled your sockpuppet Elisabeth Rogan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was you, too. I was mistaken in both instances. That doesn't mean you can just cite those as reasons I'm a Bad Person who should be ignored - and the same is true for the other editors you've kept lists of "bad" acts for and taken potshots at, as detailed in the RfC you ignored and the new request for arbitration.

If you would just accept scrutiny and criticism of your actions instead of avoiding discussion and disappearing at convenient times, we could all get back to that goal of building an encyclopedia. Fran Rogers❇ 18:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, instead of responding to my message, he requested the talk page be deleted altogether. Fran Rogers❇ 19:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dream Focus

  • The first complaint is that he copied all the information from the Caprica characters to an article list all of them, at the same time at least one of them were up for delete, with a high probability others would soon follow, that usually how these things work out. You can't copy the information over after the AFD is over, if something is deleted! The Zoe AFD ended in Keep. If an article ended in Keep, there would be no reason to put a redirect there, obviously, so that complaint seems rather ridiculous to me. Note that the AFD ended at 16:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC) and his action for starting at 16:37, 21 February 2010. Did he noticed it had been closed before copying the information over with all the rest? Was this discussed anywhere at all before bringing it here? Could've easily been a simple mistake. I see no rule violation here.
7 March 2010: Shortly after commenting at WP:Articles for deletion/Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess, AN adds reception to Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess, then copies it to Big Boss (C.O.P.S.) (contribs). I clarify that the content was all contributed by A Nobody.
  • The complaint is that he found something to put in a reference section of a character, and since it mentioned two characters in it, copied it over to the article of the other character mentioned as well. Once again, what is the complaint here?
  • In response to the next item, about Tron. He removed a prod, which is every editor's right to do, and no one else trying to delete the article since then. He then copied a small bit from that to the film article, thinking the characters in the film would do well to have that information mentioned along with them. Once again, is there any valid complaint here?
  • I didn't bother looking at the rest. I don't see any reason why the arbitrators should waste their time with this case. And many people don't bother reading the constant messages posted by deletionists on their talk pages. After awhile, the same familiar names keep showing up, and you just start to ignore them. Dream Focus 09:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Iridescent

While I generally support what A Nobody is doing – I strongly believe that a lot of Wikipedia's problems are caused by the project being overwhelmed by short poor-quality unexpandable and unwatched stubs, and it's far more useful both for readers and editors to have one bulleted list, instead of either 20 free-standing stubs or deletion altogether – I'd nonetheless ask Arbcom to accept this. The issues of what is and isn't appropriate action when it comes to merging before, during and after AFD is a long-running argument (I was caught up in an identical incident three years ago, and nothing seems to have changed). Given Arbcom's metamorphosis into the Wikipedia Supreme Court, this is exactly the sort of thing you should be issuing rulings on rather than leaving to "the community" to sort out when it's clear that the community is never going to come to agreement. We also need to sort out what is and isn't appropriate attribution when moving content from separate articles into a parent article. – iridescent 09:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Reyk

I will confirm Fran Rogers's summary of A Nobody as an editor who dodges and refuses to acknowledge all criticism of his behaviour. Much of which is deeply problematic, as a careful view of the RfC he's pretending doesn't exist will show. His response to the concerns of half a dozen editors (that he is performing merges, not for any naviational or content reasons, but just to create attribution dependencies in order to undermine AfD) has been to make it magically disappear in a ham-fisted "archive" scheme, and to characterize editors who question his actions as disruptive trolls that he can ignore. I know it is allowed for editors to remove comments from their talk page, but I feel the unwillingness to address legitimate concerns speaks volumes- as does the frankly deceitful way it was done.

Then there's the repeated demands to closing admins to overturn consensus at AfD.

Also worrying is the instence on using ANI and WQA as vehicles of retribution:

  • User:Dwanyewest makes a fair few good-faith AfD nominations and gets hauled to ANI.
  • Same user then accused of being a sock puppeteer (and the only user name mentioned in the SPI that A Nobody did not notify of the case).
  • User:Lar suggests very strongly that A Nobody address his own RfC before criticizing others- A Nobody immediately goes running to ANI about things Lar had done on his talk page weeks earlier and which had nothing to do with A Nobody.
  • User:Pablo X questions A Nobody's bizarre merging and redirecting- A Nobody goes running to WQA with some contrived flim-flam about swear words.

A Nobody's RfC shows a history of deceitful and problematic behaviour for the whole time he has been here. He hasn't acknowledged any of the community's concerns and has stated quite unequivocally that he has no intention to. The diffs I and others have shown here demonstrate that the same poor behaviour is continuing apace. He won't listen to people and won't change his disruptive actions on his own, so it's high time he was pulled into line. Reyk YO! 12:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Deor

I urge the arbitrators to take this case to examine, not just the limited issue raised by Flatscan in his request, but all the long-term disruptive behavior outlined in the opening summary of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Nobody. As Flatscan and Reyk have shown above (and as other instances that could be cited show as well), this behavior has continued to the present. A Nobody now claims to have retired, so the committee may be tempted to reject this RfAr as moot. I do not think he has retired—though he may have chosen to retire this particular account—and I think the time has come for an examination of his activities by the committee, as no other attempts at resolution have had any effect. Deor (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Cenarium

I urge arbitrators to decline the case, for now at least. From what I see, there's not enough recent activity from A Nobody which is considered problematic, and the extent of the problem is not clear at all. Thus I would suggest users to discuss the specific issues raised here, about the appropriateness of some types of merges/copyings, on the content noticeboard, for example. This is up to the community to determine the propriety or impropriety of those, not to ArbCom. When this is cleared up, if actions determined to be problematic then occur, ArbCom would be able to consider them - though I hope this won't come to that. Furthermore, I'm afraid such a case would become political, since there's not enough recent behavioural issues to support it, and the deletionism vs inclusionism debate would become a focal point, matter with which ArbCom should not to interfere. Cenarium (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the repeated unsuccessful attempts at dispute resolution, it makes sense to open a case upon return, although I believe that in general cases should be strongly supported by recent actions, in this situation, the issue lies mostly in the lack of response to DR, and that can't be efficiently handled through normal means. However arbitrators should make sure the case, if opened, is strictly confined to behavioral issues (which includes response to editors' concerns, albeit not necessarily the underlying matters themselves - as with copying/merging, and excludes the editor's views on deletion). Cenarium (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Stifle

I will offer evidence if the case is accepted. I have had many frustrating interactions with A Nobody, whose contributions seem focused on circumventing consensus and policy when it suits him but insisting on them when they are on his side, wikilawyering, and presenting faits accomplis to frustrate editors from cleaning up after him. He is, as mentioned above, well-known for stonewalling and vanishing when called on his behaviour (he made no contribution whatsoever to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Nobody) and I would not believe his retirement for one second — he will be back in a month or two, either on his current account or through a sock. I urge acceptance. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Steve Smith and SirFozzie: Would you be open to something to the effect of "accept but defer", whereby it is accepted that a case should be held, but hold off on opening it until A Nobody returns? We've gone around the circle several times of A Nobody slowly increasing his disruption level, then disappearing when hit with dispute resolution, and I can see it continuing — he'll be back and quiet for a while before starting up the same behaviour. Under this suggestion, either the case would be opened to address A Nobody's behaviour when he returns, or he will stay away. Either would, I think, deal with the disruption. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MBisanz

I would urge the committee to accept this case based on the longstanding and divisive nature of this editor's behavior that has frequently proved unresolvable by the community. This is at least the third time he has left in the face of behavioral review. Failing that, could I suggest a motion that if and at the time he returns, a case is automatically opened. This is similar to what the committee did in regard to Aitias and seems to work well to prevent gaming while still respecting the possibility of real life issues. Also, I bring to attention that at least the photo of the alleged car attack appears to be a scan of another document and is oddly missing meta-data, which does lead me to question the veracity of the claims. MBisanz talk 14:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Beeblebrox

A Nobody pulled this same routine during the RFC/U on him, claiming to be ill while it was ongoing. If you're not going to make a full case may I suggest that there be some sort of motion to restrict his editing should he return, and to rapidly re-open this case in that all to likely event, otherwise he'll just keep dodging the issue every time the heat is on, and coming back after it dies down.A Nobody has clearly exhausted most users ability to take such claims at face value, it's just too convenient that he has some personal tragedy every single time he is under public scrutiny. This is a classic example of his behavior, he thinks more in tactical terms than most Wikipedians, trying to "win" every AFD whether the article merits inclusion or not, changing his arguments when they are refuted, badgering those who he does not agree with through long winded rambling posts that serve mostly to cloud the real issues, and retreating every time it comes down to a situation like this. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mazca

I would strongly urge the committee to consider a motion akin to some of the motions at Aitias's RfAr, wherein this case is "left hanging" until he resumes editing, and he is directed not to edit under any other account until this is resolved. I've been sympathetic to A Nobody in the past, but yet another convenient illness and retirement to avoid scrutiny starts to strain credibility. This situation sorely needs to be resolved in one way or another, and if this RfAr fizzles due to his absence then this ridiculous cycle is left open to continue upon his likely return.

As I feel is amply demonstrated by some of the comments above, no individual incident in this situation is particularly sanctionable on its own. But the pattern of editing demonstrated here is strongly unhelpful and I feel binding arbitration of some sort is the only way it's going to be satisfactorily resolved at this point. ~ mazca talk 23:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by mostly retired Protonk

If the committee or individual members wish to extend an abundance of good faith, they are free to do so. But AN's past history (under all account names) has shown that in the face of scrutiny, he develops a medical problem. In case you want to take me to task for being glib, please take as evidence AN's miraculous recovery from his illness/work issue (which started precisely when his RFC began) at the moment Kww's 3rd RfA needed some mendacious commentary.

I don't think you guys are in the habit of trying 'cases' in absentia and I think an informal suggestion that the committee take up the case when he makes a nuisance of himself again is unfair to both AN and the rest of us. Edit to be more clear One of the following solutions would be best:

  1. Begin the case without AN
  2. Make a motion to resume the case when AN gets back (not conditional on some subjective behavior)
  3. Decline the case on its merits.

Mazca's assessment of the likely outcome should you do nothing seems accurate.

As for the merits of the case at hand, I can only sigh deeply. Either you see the long term disruption or you won't. A bit tautological to be sure, but that's honestly the only true statement left. Protonk (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Lankiveil

I strongly urge the ArbCom to accept this case, whether or not A Nobody shows up to defend it or not. While I believe that A Nobody's intentions are most likely good, his conduct around the areas of article deletion has been continually disruptive for years now, and he has thus far been able to avoid serious sanction by conveniently having some sort of misfortune befall him whenever he is about to be called to account. I believe the diffs and commentary above illustrate clearly the need for a case to be opened, but if you do not feel comfortable opening it when he is not here, then I would at least urge you to open it on an "Accept but Defer" basis so that we can move forward quickly if and when he returns. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment by Lar

Per everyone else. Do not decline with a vague "we might take it up if he returns". Accept it, and hold it in abeyance until he returns (he will, I'm 99% sure). Meanwhile enforce by block a prohibition on using other accounts for any reason. He has abused right to vanish enough that he needs to be held to this account and no other. When he returns, and the case gets underway, stay focused on his disruption, not on side issues raised by others. ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Kww

Don't let him duck again. There isn't enough good faith in the universe to believe in his miraculously timed recoveries and his bravely continuing to edit despite the grave personal danger that forced him to subvert "right to vanish" and continue editing. It's obvious that he feigns problems to avoid dispute resolution, and we can't allow such tactics to succeed.—Kww(talk) 00:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ryan4314

In User:A Nobody/Farewell, A/N is quoted as saying "I do not merely try to interfere with deletion outcomes..." with this he is basically acknowledging the concerns that he is intent on interfering with AFDs. However he continues to be unresponsive to all the forms of dispute resolution tried such as RFC, editor review, countless ANI threads etc. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/2/1/1)

  • Waiting for a comment from A Nobody (which it seems may be some time in coming), but I do have a question. To Flatscan, nothing in the cases you mention in your statement was deleted, and it appears as though A Nobody was diligent about linking to the source page titles in his edits, as is required when doing "smerges". So what exactly is the problem? I do see the lack of communication as an issue; while we cannot confirm medical issues and must respect user's privacy in this regard, the timing of those instances is admittedly odd. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Decline for now, to be looked at again if A Nobody returns. Several of the statements made here are concerning, but it is entirely impractical to attempt to hold an arbitration case with a main party unable and unwilling to participate. Should A Nobody return, I would also like this looked at again, and unless the situation changes considerably I'd likely move to accept the case. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As A Nobody has left Wikipedia, my initial inclination would be to decline this with the understanding that if he returns to Wikipedia, in this guise or another, we can look at opening a case then. Iridescent's comments give me some pause, though; while I don't think ArbCom's competent to rule on the requirements of CC-BY-SA, if the merging-during-AFDs thing is an issue likely to remain live even after A Nobody's departure there might be something for us to do here. Would welcome further statements speaking to this issue. Steve Smith (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline with caveats While I would generally be suspicious of any user who has the history of disappearing whenever something involving advanced stages of dispute resolution is proposed against them doing so, I have to take the statement of A Nobody on his talk page of medical issues, etcetera at face value. However, I do not want this to be seen as carte blanche.. if and when he returns, I would like to see this resume if there is a problem, and I'd ask the committee to take this prior history into their decision to accept or decline any case (and not claim that the evidence is too old or what have you). SirFozzie (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional acceptance per set out in the motion. - Mailer Diablo 10:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept and adjourn I too am willing to take A Nobody's statement at face value, there are nevertheless underlying concerns. Best is to accept this case but adjourn it sine die pending this editor's return, if ever, to editing.  Roger Davies talk 10:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept but as below, hold until/unless A Nobody returns. Shell babelfish 11:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse, as I see this as part and parcel of the long-running conduct issues surrounding fiction articles and stubs and other related matters, a topic and conduct area that I am more likely to present evidence about than be able to properly arbitrate, though, as presented, this case could (and should) cleave narrowly to specific conduct issues with individuals, and any case should avoid getting dragged into wider issues of article content. Carcharoth (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

This case is accepted, but will not be opened unless and until A Nobody (talk · contribs) returns to Wikipedia. If A Nobody does so under any account or I.P., he/she is required to notify the Committee.

Enacted' ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Proposed. Steve Smith (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SirFozzie (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mailer Diablo 10:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 10:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Coren (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Shell babelfish 12:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. With the caveat that should A Nobody return under another account, and not notify the Committee, he will face sanctions. KnightLago (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. With the caveat that if A Nobody returns but states unambiguously that he will not repeat the disputed behavior, and adheres to such promise, a case might not then be necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Noting that this motion supersedes the accept/decline voting in the section above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 07:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. This has happened after a case was opened, and I think it's a good precedent to guarantee against avoiding the issue by a well-timed disappearance. Cool Hand Luke 15:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=350875727

Leave a Reply