Requests for arbitration

Initiated by Noetica^Tea? at 03:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Noetica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• JasonMacker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Bushranger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Mike Cline (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• KillerChihuahua
• JasonMacker
• Kevin Gorman
• The Bushranger
• Mike Cline

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• At the article's talkpage
• At KillerChihuahua's talkpage
• At WP:ANI

Statement by Noetica

The perennially controversial article Men's rights has been under article probation following admin KillerChihuahua's initiative of 20 October 2011. KillerChihuahua has now implemented a move of the article to Men's rights movement (diff) contrary to policy at WP:TITLE: "Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made." That provision has been in place since 2009. Background and details:

• An earlier RM for the article was closed in November 2011 by admin Aervanath, who laid out how things should proceed later (diff).
• Ignoring that ruling, KillerChihuahua accepted a complex and irregular RFC at the talkpage – begun by User:JasonMacker within his first four edits ever – as justifying a move. She read all 5,000 words, and composed her closing remarks and closed the RFC, within 19 minutes of first hearing about the RFC's existence (see diff at her talkpage). That RFC was notified only at WP:RFC, with no hint of the true intent (diff). The RFC's real agenda was only revealed at the talkpage itself. Immediately following the notification text: "I'm proposing that this article be renamed to Men's Rights Movement, ...".
• As an avid follower of article moves (and participant at the 2011 RM), I was surprised to learn of KillerChihuahua's administrative decision. I had no warning of this proposed move; nor did anyone else unless they watched all developments at Talk:Men's rights. The RFC was therefore dominated by dedicated "locals": exactly what WP:RM works to avoid.
• I objected at the talkpage (see this section), and informed KillerChihuahua (diff), saying "I hope it will not be necessary to take the matter to WP:ANI": later misquoted and wrongly portrayed as a "threat".
• There was clearly no hope of a reversal (see the talkpage); so when User:Kevin Gorman set a kind of deadline for my doing so, I reluctantly took the matter to WP:ANI (see this archived section). Without any respect for policy provisions at WP:TITLE, or consideration of editors in different time zones, my submission was dismissed by closing admin The Bushranger after just eleven hours.
• Just one hour after that closure, KillerChihuahua unilaterally edited the relevant text at WP:TITLE – a page subject to a recent ArbCom decision, with discretionary sanctions in place and advertised at WT:TITLE. Her edit altered the policy text to be more permissive of her actions at Talk:Men's rights (diff).
• KillerChihuahua was reverted by admin Jenks24; only then did she start an RFC at WP:TITLE, which still continues (see this section and subsequent sections). Admin Mike Cline, an RM specialist, is prominent among editors opposing any alteration to the substance of the provision.

I allege conduct violations by KillerChihuahua; and I will give further evidence of her improper action as an involved admin, incivility, reckless or wilful misrepresentation, and failure to assume good faith. If the case is accepted I will seek suitable remedies. For now, I request an immediate interim motion to reverse the irregular and controversial move before any more damage is done.
Noetica^Tea? 03:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to KillerChihuahua

• At 07:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC) KillerChihuahua wrote: "If it is about the MR Rfc itself, then despite Noetica claiming he had no idea it existed, he certainly noticed it was closed and posted a mere 25 minutes later on the article talk page, ...". Well, let's assume good faith. As anyone can see from the timestamp for this post, I check my watchlist very regularly. Because it includes a large number of pages, I have this setting in my preferences: "Group changes by page in recent changes and watchlist (requires JavaScript)." If there are more than one edit for a page, only the name of the page and the names of the editors are displayed (and I can click to reveal further detail). Talk:Men's rights is for me a low-priority page to check (it has so much traffic, and most of it is political and belligerent). But I skim to see who is posting at such pages. Having encountered KillerChihuahua as a sort of "moderator" there and at my talkpage last year, I checked when I noticed her name annexed to that page on my watchlist. That is the first I knew of the deceptively advertised RFC, and of its closure.
  Noetica^Tea? 07:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three new points:

• In your first post here you spoke of "forum shopping", and others have taken up that theme. Hardly a fair accusation. Of course I took the matter to ANI first. I am expected to do just that, for review and discussion of an admin's actions. ArbCom wants requests here to be part of a graded approach, and asks for a list of measures that have already been attempted. See my list, at the head of the section: the article's talkpage, your talkpage, and ANI. That's perfectly standard. I never expected ANI to deal other than briskly with this matter; that's its nature. You have again misrepresented something I said, and what I have taken the trouble to quote explicitly above: "I hope it will not be necessary to take the matter to WP:ANI." I did take it there – reluctantly (as I said at ANI) and with trepidation. I was not at all surprised that the discussion was rapidly curtailed (without any chance of my responding, in Australian time), and that the actual details I presented were waved aside. Two editors who I formally notified about the ANI case have said at my talkpage that the discussion was closed before they could join in! It is ludicrous to assert, as Fut.Perf does in another submission here, that "the community resolved unanimously" anything at all in that briefest of hearings. You query my naming as a party here the admin who did the ANI close? You now have your answer. But however things proceed there, here we may expect slow and impartial scrutiny of diffs and other facts, and examination of all relevant policy. There rhetoric and partisan appeals might win the day; but here evidence, argument, and balanced consideration are expected. Let the facts and the relevant policies be addressed. As I write, I see that no commenter (least of all you) has tackled with hard argument anything central to my submission – where I demonstrate a prima facie case, for you to answer. This is not an actual hearing of a case; these are preliminaries, and I have done my part in total compliance with what is asked of me, in good faith and without diverging from the topic. Naturally I expect the same of other participants. All participants!
• You have pointed to the oddity of JasonMacker's sudden appearance (others too: "from Zeus's head", says Collect). Well, wasn't I the first to raise that as a matter for review? After all of the admin-heavy RFC process that he started and despite the article probation (in which you played the lead), which was put in place precisely to deal with such concerns? Yet you took no account of that anomaly in your reading, consideration, and closure of the RFC (19 minutes from a cold start – as you have conceded at ANI). A strange and perhaps one-sided application of people's abiding and certainly justified anxiety over single-purpose accounts.
• You misrepresent what I have said about Mike Cline. I hope you will stop doing that. And my interpretation of events at WT:TITLE, in so far as the matter is at all relevant, differs sharply from yours. A number of editors have objected to changing the clear and established policy at all, and we are yet to hear again from them.

Noetica^Tea? 20:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to semi-involved Cailil

• You wrote: "There are some obvious inaccuracies in Noetica's statement: the article probation was my initiative in October 2011 as an involved editor not an admin and not KC's." Well of course. I am allowed 500 words in my statement, and unlike any other contributor here I have to introduce all of the essential details, and also make a clear request by way of conclusion. Your initiative was to propose article probation at ANI; and what for economy of language I have called "admin KillerChihuahua's initiative of 20 October 2011" was to close the ANI discussion in favour of your proposal, and then to implement it. Well motivated and well done, I say! Now, you have identified no other "obvious inaccuracy" in my submission. Please assist me to clarify: what else do you challenge, for factual accuracy?

Noetica^Tea? 22:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Slp1

• In answer to my "Notes to arbitrators", you wrote: "That's a massive assumption of bad faith and is also just plain inaccurate." Well, I see that as a massive assumption of bad faith, and just plain inaccurate. You could have asked me for clarification, but chose instead to assume the worst. I could find edits for you whose effect was entirely unrecorded in edit summaries; and many edits are clearly concerned to play down documented facts and details and stress instead statements from, or about, the "men's rights movement". So many summaries were so unspecific that nothing could be sorted out, short of tediously trawling through successive old versions of the page. Assume good faith, while I confirm for you that I tried. I downloaded the history for the last 10,000 edits [sic; since 2003] on the page; I searched for "refugee", and could not locate where my addition had been finally removed. Thank you for supplying what I could not track down: your edit, with this summary: "(→‎Other items: removing original research: see talk)". How could I have found that? In the very next edit you deleted factual and detailed material (with three references) about social security, and substituted text based not on primary facts but on claims: "Men's rights groups have argued since the 1970s that men are given inferior social security and tax benefits to women, ..." with references to support that, instead. Your edit summary (diff) suppressed the fact that you had removed 150 words: "(→‎Other items: add what I can find on social security and benefits)", and also that you made other changes, not on social security at all. Now, I fully understand the different stance you have concerning the article. You want it to be about what "men's rights groups" claim. Fair enough! But that is a sort of political stance, given that the article was then called "Men's rights", not "Men's rights movement". The bottom line: I was unwilling to invest a huge effort to tracking down what you could, with a little consideration and forethought, have documented accurately.
• [Added later, but before any response this present material:] You write: "*Your quote of KC's post on your talkpage misses the opening phrase, [1], which indicates that KC was there in the role of administrator trying to help editors communicate better during the move discussion." And your point? I already said I had "encountered KillerChihuahua as a sort of 'moderator' [...] at my talkpage" (see above); in the diff I provided showing my response at my talkpage I wrote, if you care to check, that KillerChihuahua appears "not to distinguish the role of helpful admin overseeing a difficult discussion from the role of commentator on the content". I suggest you read both of the diffs in their entirety. I quoted from each of them here, and marked that I did so each time with ellipsis points: to show only what fitted the context here. I might otherwise be censured for quoting at unnecessary length. As it is, someone or other will censure me no matter how I present the unwelcome points I feel compelled to make, in the interest of the Project. (Right now, my overarching fault seems to be my speaking up at all. Some editors' and admins' flaws are not noticed, or are excused by the quickest of ingrained reflexes; not my own flaws, of course.)
• Apart from issues already addressed, the only other points I find to respond to in your statement confirm what we all agree on, and what I pointed out in my first six words: "The perennially controversial article Men's rights ...". And because "the area is frequently very fraught", in your words, any move for it is bound to be controversial. (That is, if it gets advertised openly at the expected location, there will be an exposure of controversy. The RFC that KillerChihuahua closed was a failure, because the community was not notified of a proposed move.) Especially, of course, the persistent push to move the article to "Men's rights movement" rather than "Men's rights" (corresponding to the article Women's rights). Hence the long-standing requirement in policy at WP:TITLE, that we advertise all controversial moves in the expected central location. Frankly, if I ever cared passionately, I am certainly over it now. I have been truly and passionately concerned about process with article moves. I never held out any hope that the "Men's rights" matter could be dealt with in open, well-advertised community discussion. Events have confirmed that. A shame, really. But that's the nature of gender politics, and that's the nature of Wikipedia. I did my bit; but patently that could never be enough, to solve a nest of deep systemic problems that is bigger than us all. ☺!

Noetica^Tea? 00:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Mathsci

• You come here without declaring that you supported "Men's rights movement" in the genuine RM discussion of November 2011 (diff). But now that your preferred title is finally in place, you make this bare assertion: "The recent move seems uncontroversial." You impugn The Devil's Advocate, who has no history on the talkpage at all, for starting an RM request "while this RfAr is still under discussion" (though even KillerChihuahua has said a new request would be welcome at any time). But you say nothing to counter the allegations that KillerChihuahua has directly flouted policy at WP:TITLE, deliberately and unilaterally altered that policy to suit her own position one hour after an ANI action in which she refused to address points about such black-letter provisions. You say nothing about KillerChihuahua initiating an RFC at WT:TITLE to achieve that same result, and then dominating the process there "while this RfAr is still under discussion". You mention an entirely unconnected topic ban for The Devil's Advocate; but you leave it for us to discover that you were "admonished for engaging in battlefield conduct", to quote an ArbCom decision of 14 May 2012 (see this section). Please people: can we focus on the topic and the hard evidence, without the tired old politics?

Noetica^Tea? 09:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes to arbitrators

• On arbitrators' comments so far, let me point out that before I raised the present concerns at Talk:Men's rights, I had posted there exactly twice: in two measured submissions that appealed for objectivity and equal treatment (diff1, diff2), in a duly advertised RM. As I have said, I avoid that talkpage because it is political and belligerent. I am surprised that anyone should contemplate a need to exclude me from the topic! I willingly stay well away. In the article itself I have contributed only a few points about social security and refugee policy in Australia, with references to support the main facts. People had said that such details were lacking on the page, so I supplied what I could. For what I suppose were political reasons beyond my understanding, some have been removed without explanation or edit summaries to show when, how, or why. I also did a little much-needed housekeeping, for grammar and the like (see my 23 contributions).
• Following my second and final comment in that RM, KillerChihuahua came to my talkpage and left an unsigned comment concerning the RM (diff): "... You also appear to misunderstand the nature of the situation - Men's rights is not parallel to Women's rights; the two have completely different origins, history, and prominence" (my underlining). What I underline there is KillerChihuahua joining in the discussion of a core issue in the RM. She was committed on that core issue, and saw fit to state her view unequivocally to me as a participant in it. In my response (diff) to her extraordinary post I said: "... I feel intimidated and under threat of arbitrary sanctions, given the community probation you have imposed and the censorious moves you have recently made against an editor. It's just too dangerous, even for innocent bystanders. I see little hope for improvement of the article or the situation surrounding it." And now, in a second discussion (a most irregular substitute for a properly advertised RM, which might have brought genuine consensus if anything could), KillerChihuahua presents herself as a detached adjudicator capable of assessing the arguments on their merits. I am surprised that anyone should dismiss my alarm at this as somehow trivial, or my acting on it as in any way vexatious.
• As for taking the matter to the new "move review" process, the feasibility of doing that has been raised both at WT:TITLE (by Mike Cline; others too?) and briefly (by me) at Wikipedia talk:Move review: but no one knows whether that process could deal with the present irregular admin action. The development never contemplated such an anomaly; the procedures at Wikipedia:Move review all presuppose that standard RM process has been followed. Believe me: if I had thought any recourse was available in this situation other than ANI followed by ArbCom, I would have chosen it immediately.

Noetica^Tea? 21:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KillerChihuahua

I am not sure why we're here. If it is because Noetica objects to the mechanism used to determine consensus on Men's rights, then IMO this bears the color of forum shopping because the ANI did not fall out the way he would have preferred. If it is about the MR Rfc itself, then despite Noetica claiming he had no idea it existed, he certainly noticed it was closed and posted a mere 25 minutes later on the article talk page, outraged at the Rfc which had been there for 34 days, during which time he raised no objections and made no requests the discussion be moved to another venue. It may have been simply odd timing that he noticed the Rfc right as it was being closed. It certainly was not because he watches moves, because the article itself was not moved until well after the ANI discussion closed, several days later. If it is about the Rfc I started on TITLE, that has been running for only a few days and already we are getting close to consensus, and this is hasty, and we should allow the Rfc to run its course. If it is about something else, then I would appreciate being informed what the core of the matter is, so I can respond with some intelligence rather than this somewhat scattershot method. Regardless of why we are here, it is an odd assortment of editors Noetica has named. Jason opened the MR Rfc, but has participated in nothing else named. Mike participated only in the Rfc on TITLE, Bushranger only on ANI and so on. There seems no glue except me, and I cannot make out what the specific complaint against me actually is.

So far as my actions are concerned, I have acted in good faith throughout. I had no reason to believe, nor do I think the editors of Men's rights had any reason to believe, that the move would be controversial. Certainly the 34 day Rfc was a model of civility. Noetica has raised no objections to the actual rename, only to the fact that Rfc was used and not RM. The ANI discussion found no wrongdoing on my part, and found the RFC appropriate and the close correct. If I had it to over again, knowing only what I knew at that time, I would probably act exactly the same and close the Rfc. If I had it to over again, knowing there would be any objections or concerns about due process, I would probably have told Slp1 to take the proposed name change to RM. Regarding TITLE, I made an edit which was reverted, and of course sought further input, opening an RFC to discuss the matter.

I have more information, and timeline with a lot of difs, but I truncate this in the interest of brevity. Please do ask if there are concerns not addressed here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 07:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment regarding Collect's observation about JasonMacker: Yes, that might need looking into, although as the editor may be someone who is trying a restart, I would prefer that be handled by ArbCom, should they deem it necessary, "behind the scenes." If, for example, this is an editor who was harassed "in real life" for editing here, as seems to be fairly common on this subject, and they are trying again with a Uname which does not reveal their r/l identity, we would be doing them no favors by making a public reveal. In such cases our need for transparency does not outweigh their need for safety. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Collect: I apologize, I misunderstood you to mean that this should be investigated publicly. My error completely. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Admin Mike Cline, an RM specialist, is..." not only not unilaterally opposed to improving the wording of the policy page, it is his rewrite (we're on our 7th) which appears to be slated to reach unanimous approval. While he objected strongly to the first suggested edit, (he was right, it had issues) I wish to state here that he has proven to be very much a team player, and once he understood the specific issues with the current verbiage, has been working hard with others to reach a version which addresses everyone's concerns. His ability to move past his first reaction and examine the issues at hand is admirable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The Devil's Advocate has disagreed with my role as an admin before, when I declined to share his view regarding my comment on his appeal of his AE sanctions. I am not surprised he is characterizing my attempts to ensure the WP:TITLE policy (not guideline as TDA mistakenly states) is edited for clarity, in order to (hopefully) prevent such confusion, frustration, wikilawyering and combative IDHT as we are currently seeing from Noetica, as somehow trying to "justify" an action, as in his previous interaction with me he made similar charges (involvement.) Obviously any edits made now cannot "back up [my] administrative action" - the "action" such as it was, was not undertaken until after cleared via an ANI discussion. Had the community decided I had erred, then I would still be suggesting clarification of wording at WP:TITLE, because in that case it would have been I who misunderstood. Either way the verbiage was unclear and we now have (so far) unanimous agreement on a new phrasing which will hopefully lessen misunderstanding and disputes in the future. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The Devil's Advocate: It has already been suggested to Noetica that he open a new discussion. He stated he does not disagree with the name, having no opinion at all, but objects to the mechanism used (Rfc rather than RM) KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Fut.Perf.

This is ridiculous. This matter was discussed at ANI, and the community resolved unanimously that KillerChihuahua did nothing wrong and that Noetica needed to drop the stick. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Collect

The RfC close appears proper - so much for that. There is a side issue, however, which the committee should look at - the appearance of an "Athena emerging full blown from Zeus's head" in the form of JasonMacker - the probability of a genuine new user having this edit history (including bluelinking his user and UT pages on his first day, is slightly less than nil, and such can be looked at without any "case" at all regarding this article. Collect (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@KC -- I rather thought my observation was that the process should be done by the committee - I do not see where you appear to disagree with that point. Collect (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@JM - in which case I assume you have no objection to having your prior account named? We all wish to avoid some well-known problems with editors who have had prior accounts who ended up being a focus of ArbCom cases, and the more we can be assured that we are not facing any similar cases, the easier we can rest. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by semi-involved Cailil

For clarity I took no part in this move issue but have been a long time contributor to Men's Rights issues on this site.
There are some obvious inaccuracies in Noetica's statement: the article probation was my initiative in October 2011 as an involved editor not an admin and not KC's. I started a discussion on ANi about community sanctions for the topic area after a series of quite serious attacks on Kevin Gorman made by organized offsite elements. KC closed and enacted that probation as an uninvolved sysop. The specific issue of the move as detailed by Noetica has been asked and answered twice (at the article talk page and ANi). Noetica is now straying into the realms of harassment of KC.
I would petition the committe to consider taking a case on the impact on Men's Rights topics on wikipedia of offsite advocacy, harassment and meatpuppetry; as well as onsite harassment and attacks. One of the key recurring issues of these offsite pressure groups is that they don't like women editing "their pages", and men that make edits that these offsite groups don't like, come in for the kind of attacks that Kevin Gorman was subject to (I can't link to the attacks on Kevin but some were similar to these targeted at me in '07[2][3]).
This particular case as put forward by Noetica demonstrates how untenable the situation in this topic has become. It is thoroughly inappropriate for any editor who doesn't like an administrative decision to attempt to personalize that issue in order to fudge whether a sysop is involved or not. It is just as inappropriate for wikipedians to co-ordinate edits offiste[4] or to organize meatpuppetry[5] as was done at State_of_Louisiana_v._Frisard within the last week (as of time of my posting). This makes administrative action impossible - who is going to put themselves forward to be attacked in this manner on- and off-site (as well as in real life). And making matters worse, editors (and in this topic area I'm an editor not a sysop) are subject to this treatment by offsite groups as a matter of course.
This issue if ArbCom takes it on would have to open up the long standing issue with offsite edit co-ordination, organized harassment of wikipedians & meatpuppetry. If it does so the Committee should understand that this problem is long standing, goes back to 2006[6] (at least) and may in fact be comparable to the EEML case in terms of use of other websites, chat mechanisms, forums etc to coordinate POV editing and harassment of individual editors in contravention of the very fundamental policies of this site--Cailil ^talk 12:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: if the committee takes this case, or if they are interested besides I can furnish it with further information in private. Furthermore I agree with Collect re JasonMacker--Cailil ^talk 12:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum 2: There is as should be obvious from my above also a serious single purpose account issue with this area. This issue usually comes up with AFDs (ie MGTOW.com in 2006 and in 2011 Thomas James Ball) however the Men's Rights/Men's Rights Movement article is also subject to accounts of the WP:SPA nature one of whom is a retired sysop. Again this is only relevant if the committee takes this case and I'll furnish that information on request of the committee on-wiki or in private at their discretion--Cailil ^talk 12:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum 3: Regrading Slp1's suggestion of ArbCom adding their weight to the community probation this would help. However
a) the probation needs to extend to topics related (ie domestic violence Fathers rights, misandry and antifeminism - its the same topic area and disputes frequently spill over between them and beyond).
b) The issue of single purpose accounts, harassment and meatpuppetry was never added to that probation, there are ArbCom findings on similar behaviour elsewhere that could be added by motion to the Community sanction.
c) The offsite attacks on wikipedians by other wikipedians (not just John Does who only edit WP once) is a serious issue in this topic area - if the committee has a suggestion for mechanisms to deal with this without a case a lot of time and effort all 'round would be saved--Cailil ^talk 14:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by marginally involved PBS

I do not think this arbitration request should not have been brought, as the initial issue was settled at an ANI, and I think that KillerChihuahua now has a better understanding of why we have a dedicated procedure called WP:RM to handle technical and conversational moves!

The only point which could possibly be seen as out of order during the series of events that have escalated to here was one bold edit of a policy page (WP:AT) which could be seen as a breach of: Arbitration: Good faith and disruption.

If KillerChihuahua was a regular in the discussion of WP:Article title then such a change might be seen as knowingly controversial and disruptive, but I would be very surprised if that was a majority of editors -- given the usual acceptance that the bold edit cycle is seen as non-disruptive -- would view this change by a none regular at AT discussions as disruptive. -- PBS (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boing!

At ANI the consensus was that there had been a clear consensus for the move, and that KillerChihuahua had acted properly. This is just forum-shopping. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@The Devil's Advocate. Please note that I am not supporting the move from any opinion on which title is better - my opinion is simply that KillerChihuahua's actions were fine. If there is further dispute about the title, further discussion can be held, a request to move it back can be made, etc - but allegations of misconduct and the escalating forum shopping is not the right way to go about it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Slp1

• Other editors have already made most of the main points I wish to make about this request. I'll add that Noetica opposed the move of "Men's rights" to "Men's rights movement" in 2011[7][8], and this appears to be the latest in a series of attempts on the talkpage [9] and at ANI [10] to have the KC's close of the more recent RFC reversed. Neither gained any traction.
• Aervanath's close of the 2011 move discussion stated that "A new move request may be proposed"[11], without specifying any particular discussion forum or form - that I understood, at least.
• Cailil is correct that he, not KC, initiated the community topic probation proposal.[12].
• Cailil is also correct that the area is frequently very fraught, and that off and on-wiki attacks, coordination, POV/advocacy editing, and SPAs etc are common. Particularly appalling were the threats of real life consequences against Kevin Gorman last year [13]. Several editors have stated that they do not edit the area because of the situation, including fears for their safety (I can dig up the diffs, if necessary). Whether a full Arb Com case would help is something I am less sure of at this point, since the area is so fluid with editors constantly coming and going. The Community Topic Probation has helped a lot; a motion affirming it as an Arb Com Topic Probation would help, I think, as this would allow postings at Arbitration Enforcement, and the involvement of more administrators, spreading the load and hopefully reducing the targeting of administrators who agree to work in the area. As an aside for Arb Com action, it would be good to see the standard Arb Com principle "Attempts to discredit people's views based on personal traits such as race, creed, nationality or sexual preference are in most cases Personal Attacks", be amended to include "gender" the next time this comes up.
• re:Jason Macker: I've kept my eye on these pages a bit, and don't recognize the style or content of this particular editor myself. Someone who wants to move the article, but wants to use men's rights sources so they can speak for themselves is an unusual combination that I haven't seen before.
• KC talks about what she has learnt for the future. What I've learnt is that I should have asked for the 2011 RM close to be reviewed.[14] Without any disrespect to the closing administrator, that close was pretty strange given that a large majority of established editors supported the move [there were several double !votes and externally-recruited SPAs opposers], and (to me!) the supporters had good policy-based reasonings to boot. It might have helped prevent this particular flareup, but obviously not the wider problems. --Slp1 (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Noetica's "Notes to Arbitrators":

• "For what I suppose were political reasons beyond my understanding, some have been removed without explanation or edit summaries to show when, how, or why?" That's a massive assumption of bad faith and is also just plain inaccurate. Following concerns at ANI and on the talkpage about the amount of OR in the article, your edits about refugees and social security in Australia [15][16][17][18] were removed as original research/synthesis, and this was noted on the talkpage here and here and in an edit summary here. Note that the information was replaced, where it was possible, with non-OR reliably sourced material about the topic and men's rights e.g. [19].
• Your quote of KC's post on your talkpage misses the opening phrase,[20], which indicates that KC was there in the role of administrator trying to help editors communicate better during the move discussion. --Slp1 (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

I am bit confused by this case. There does appear to be a legitimate POV contention here regarding the move, though the RfC as formed was not itself improper. However, I think the evaluation of that RfC is a tad questionable. My review shows at least four of the seven editors who commented were involved in the topic area, with the remaining three breaking down as two in favor and one opposed. One involved editor expressed no opinion on the issue. The editor filing the RfC seems to be a blatant SPA and possible sock. Even more confusing is the statement by FPaS that there was "unanimous consensus at ANI" because I mostly see a small group of editors, most of them involved, supporting the action. I see maybe one uninvolved editor, Boing, doggedly supporting the action. Hobit appeared sympathetic to redoing the move discussion while Bishonen simply expressed that she did not understand the dispute. Another editor commented to raise concerns about KC's conduct regarding the dispute. Not seeing anything in either discussion to suggest the matter is settled in any respect. Most disconcerting in the above case is the attempt by KC to change the guideline on renames to back up her administrative action. However, I am also not seeing anything to suggest this needs arbitration at this point. Noetica's concerns about KC would be better handled with an RfC/U as I see nothing severe enough to warrant arbitration.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another option for Noetica to consider would be bringing the rename issue to WP:MRV. While that process technically refers to Requested Move discussions, it is not inappropriate, from my perspective, that it be used to deal with other contentious rename discussions closed by admins.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to object to the characterization of a "broad" consensus as that implies a diverse group of editors reviewed the issue and agreed on a course of action. Here we had the regulars of the article insisting on the position on which they have always insisted, with only a smidgen of outside input. At ANI again there is that issue of those supporting the close in that discussion consisting almost entirely of those who voted for the result that the close implemented. That is not consensus. Save for Boing it appears most uninvolved editors were ambivalent on the legitimacy of the discussion and close. Looking at the discussion at WP:TITLE it is clear there is little support for this unique take on contentious move discussions. Editors, especially admins, should always be careful to characterize something as a consensus decision based solely on how many people are present to support a given action. The group that speaks the loudest and most often is not the same as the group that is most representative of the broader community.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this appears to be primarily a dispute over the rename I have requested a move back to the old title noting POV and duplication concerns.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mathsci

I have followed edits on this particular article and its talk page from the time coordinated editing from outside, targeting Kevin Gorman in particular, forced editing on the article to be placed under probation. That solution seems to have worked very well so far. The recent move seems uncontroversial. There is nothing at present that suggests that there has been any wrongdoing on the part of KillerChihuahua, in fact quite the contrary. I don't think any kind of arbitration is required. Mathsci (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Advocate has just made this edit[21] on the article talk page, requesting that the article be renamed. Since he was topic banned from WP:ARB911 (for the second time), he has been spending his time misusing wikipedia processes, including arbcom pages. Making this request on the talk page of this article, which he has never previously edited [22][23] and while this RfAr is still under discussion, seems extraordinarily unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JasonMacker

I'd like to begin by reiterating what I wrote on Talk:Men's rights:

Hi everyone, I got the notice for the RFC on my talk page, but it seems that it was opened and closed in less than a day and I didn't get a chance to explain my actions.

I think it's fairly clear that I'm not a "newbie" editor as I went straight for the talk page before doing any major changes to the article. I've been an avid reader of Wikipedia, as well as a reader of Wikipedia talk pages, ArbCom cases, AN:I, among other things.

Regarding my RFC, I thought I made it clear that my main problem with the article is the scope. For me at least, discussing the scope of an article very much involves the article's name and the dilemma of "should we change the article to match the name, or should we change the name to match the article"? I was not simply asking for a page move, because my issue with the article is more than just move. It's clear from how people reacted to my suggested changes to the article that simply changing the article's name will not solve the article's problem. When I read the guidelines for WP:RFC it says "If possible, keep your statement or question simple and succinct, so that the RfC attracts a clear and actionable response." Whether my blurb was not descriptive enough, I'm unsure of, but I reasoned that any clicking through to my RFC will read all of what I wrote and understand my stance on the name change.

If I made a faux pas here and should have used WP:RM, I apologize. What is strange to me then, is that if this was the established procedure to do this, how come during the month-long RFC none of the users here brought it up? From 10 July to 14 August, not one of the users said anything about needing WP:RM, or anything about it really. In fact, the very first response I got was from User:TParis, an admin, who didn't mention it. I would assume that if it was an egregious violation of procedure, that this admin would have brought it up.

For those interested, here is my only namespace edit on the men's rights movement article.

Finally, to reiterate, I make no claims of being a "new user" to Wikipedia. I can reassure everyone here, however, that I have never edited the Men's Rights Movement or any feminism-related articles on any other account of mine. Last time I was editing Wikipedia under a username was half a decade ago, with no involvement with the Men's Rights Movement article or any other Feminism related article.--JasonMacker (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Blueboar

I don't think there is any need for arbitration here... The underlying issue stems from a difference of opinion on how to interpret the WP:Article titles policy ... which does tell editors to advertise controversial edits through the RM process. The question is whether that instruction was intended to be an absolute "rule", with no exceptions (controversial changes must be discussed at RM)... or was it intended to be more informational in nature (informing editors that RM is the best forum for determining consensus about controversial title changes)? Noetica bases his complaint against KillerChihuahua on a strict interpretation (ie it's an absolute "rule"). However, my understanding is that the intent was to be more informational. The point of the policy statement is that controversial title changes should be based on discussion and consensus (discussions which usually take place at RM), not to say that RM is the only venue for achieving discussion and consensus. This is currently being clarified at the policy, so hopefully this will never come up again. Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MONGO

There appears to be general consensus on the talkpages and that is always preferable to an arbitration mess.--MONGO 19:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by mostly uninvolved Neotarf

I would like to make some statement, and I realize that in London and New York it is a reasonable hour and an ordinary summer day. But in my part of the world, it is the middle of the night, and we have just experienced the beginning of a major regional holiday that typically shuts down all services, airports, everything, for up to a week. The ANI on this closed before I could respond to people who directed questions to me on it, and I would like the opportunity to say something here at least.

I have participated in quite a few RMs, an area that most editors are not familiar with. I am not involved in the content of the Men's rights article, but discussed some technicalities of the move on that talk page.

Can I have a little more time here? I want to give some thought to this and be fair to everyone. We come to ArbCom for a reason, the least we can do is present the ideas in a way that Arbcom can understand the situation and give meaningful advice. Neotarf (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my statement. Thank you for your patience.

Concerns about the "Men's rights" move:

• Possible forum shopping

This group had a previous Requested Move that was denied. [24] KillerChihuahua has steadfastly refused to file a new Requested Move, but has just as steadfastly refused to say what possible advantage there is to circumventing the RM process.

The article still has the same problems (easily corrected) as when the original RM was filed.

• The original RfC should have been closed by an uninvolved admin.

KillerChihuahua, who closed the RfC, is deeply involved with the project, with a total of 69 edits. [25]

She has also rejected Noetica's sources for the article, not because of NPOV problems, but because his sources did not fit in with her POV opinions regarding men's rights. [26]

• No one has a problem with the RfC that took place on the article's talk page. No one has a problem with the ANI decision. Many articles reach consensus on the talk page before being submitted to Requested Moves. This is a Good Thing.

• Here is the problem: a move that is potentially controversial ought to be advertised at RM -- something that does not seem unreasonable to me. This one was not.

The policy (not guideline) at WP:TITLE is clear, "Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made."

The "Men's rights" article is controversial. An RM for the same requested title has already been denied once (but the objections can be easily fixed) , plus there has been a recent objection on the talk page.

Are admins expected to follow policy, or not? This article needs an RM to reach the consensus required by WP:TITLE policy.

• Possible gaming the system?

KillerChihuahua well understands the RM requirement for controversial moves. Although I have never seen her participate in a page move or a policy discussion at WP:TITLE, she went straight to this part of the policy and deleted it. [27] At the same time, she insisted over and over again that "no one is even trying to say that RM isn't the best way. I have no idea how you could still be misunderstanding this." and that alternative methods used to advertise a proposed move have been "off the table since day 1". [28] [29] Then she moved "Men's rights", without using the RM process. [30]

• Deleting history and salting titles.

The editing group wants to delete some of the page history, and possibly has done so already, "since all it represents is some previous drama". [31] Another reason an uninvolved admin needs to be doing these moves. The other titles need to be discussed openly and not just made into redirects, to make sure needed titles are available for agreed-on stubs. I have no idea what titles are needed or how many of them have been secretly salted.

RECOMMENDATIONS

If KillerChihuahua had listed the article at RM instead of trying to change the policy that requires it, this would have been over 6 days ago, without ANI, without Arbcom. Even now, she could still revert herself, list the article at RM, and let an uninvolved admin do the move.

KillerChihuahua also needs to stop using her edit summaries to insult Noetica.

What about Move Review? Um, no. MR is not for hashing out the title but for reviewing whether the technicalities of WP:RM/CI closing instructions have been followed correctly. An RM is needed.

This article is in a big hole, with regard to patterns of disruptive editing, mistrust, and incivility, but in all fairness, its editors have not done all the digging. There are several outside websites, some of them now closed, that existed just for the purpose of harassing the editors of this article. Maybe Arbcom can help out with that, and with expediting the RM and getting this article to the top of the list, since the bots are down and it has to be done manually.

So 1) revert 2) list at RM with Arbcom expediting 3) reach consensus (and Noetica will probably post something pedantic and gnomish that will annoy KillerChihuahua but will contain at least one invaluable nugget). 4) extra eyes on the RM for new special purpose accounts 5) close by uninvolved admin. 6) happiness for everyone

Respectfully submitted,

Neotarf (talk) 06:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/2)

• Awaiting statements, esp. from KillerChihuahua. Courcelles 03:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What appears to be necessary to me is nothing we need a case for, so I can support either topic banning Noetica by motion, or declining, with a preference for the topic ban. Courcelles 17:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Awaiting any further input from the community, but so far not seeing this as stated as requiring arbitration. If there is a serious issue with off-site co-ordinated harrassment of editors in this area, then a case covering that should be filed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not seeing a case that requires arbitration here. Decline SirFozzie (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. As a formal matter, I can understand Noetica's view that potentially controversial moves should always go through a formal requested move (RM) process rather than an RfC on the talkpage (comparable to how a potentially controversial deletion needs to go through AfD). Nonetheless, there seems to be broad consensus on the article talkpage, in the ANI thread, and in the comments we have received here that the process that was used was acceptable—and certainly that KillerChihuahua's role in it did not represent misconduct, much less misconduct that would warrant an arbitration case. Nor do I endorse the suggestion that an RfC/U or any further follow-up is needed regarding KillerChihuahua's actions. One observation I do have is that a few weeks ago, the community was headed toward setting up a formal "move review" process (akin to deletion review) to provide a review mechanism for disputed moves; I only became aware of this because it was mentioned in the Perth arbitration, but if that process is now up-and-running, it might have been a more useful next step to pursue than arbitration (although I don't suggest that it be pursued now). As for the idea of a broader case concerning user conduct on men's rights, that isn't warranted based on this request. If someone wants to pursue such a case, it should be filed as a new request, and the filing party should clearly explain what remedies he or she believes the Committee could usefully impose, that would be more effective than the community-originated probation already in place. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per SirFozzie and Newyorkbrad. Looking at the discussion, there appears to be sufficient consensus for a move, and the close seems perfectly reasonable. While I appreciate that controversial moves should generally go through Wikipedia:Requested Moves, and not Wikipedia:Requests for comment, this doesn't appear to be anything more than a misunderstanding. If anyone wants to contest the move, Wikipedia:Move review is the appropriate venue, otherwise I also don't see a case to arbitrate here. PhilKnight (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Casprings (talk) at 21:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Casprings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• 209.6.69.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Adavidb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ego White Tray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hoary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• IP
• Adavidb
• Ego White Tray
• Hoary

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1 Talk page. Includes a RfC request.
• Link 2 Here IP editor declines to participate in DRN process

Statement by Casprings

I will argue that the IP editor is trying to place WP:POV into the article. The subject of this request is the background section but I feel his edits on the war on women show the same intent. Most of my argument centers on WP:UNDUE . Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. The IP, continues to try to take the wording of the article to place undue weight on certain aspects. While I will use other WP policies to make the argument, I think in the end, it adds up to a strong effort to put WP:POV. These comments are made off a comparison of these the current version and this version.

First, this version

Versus

Reading the second edit by the IP editor, there is some clear examples of WP:UNDUE. The hearing received press coverage (as shown on the attached source and others) because it had no females and the hearing dealt with contraception and birth control. In the last sentence the IP editor is constructing an argument. He/she is making a point and putting WP:UNDUE weight on a hearing that received little WP:Notability. The event received media coverage because of the morning session. Bring up the later hearing and with the current wording is another means to provide WP:UNDUE Moreover, the exclusion of what the administrations policy actually is on the subject leaves out an important fact. Here the IP is again trying to remove WP:BALANCE from the article by removing a relavent fact.

I have taken several steps in order to enter into a productive conversation with the IP editor. DRN, the talk page, and a RfC were used. However, as of yet, there is no consensus. I requested this to prevent further edit Waring.

Statement by Ego White Tray

I have never edited this article and made a single comment on the talk page. If this is accepted, I fully expect to be dropped from the case, and frankly, I don't really care which version the article ends up with. If you want uninvolved third-party opinions on things, how about not dragging them into your arbitration cases, huh? I hope that, if accepted, Casprings is censured for listing an editor who was barely involved into an arbitration case, but I don't think this case should be accepted. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hoary

I can't say I've never edited this article, but it's not on my watchlist and my name doesn't appear within the lists of the 500 most recent edits to it and its talk page. So I hardly think I'm an "involved party". (I was involved in Sandra Fluke and its AfDs, during which experience I was greatly impressed by the apparently inexhaustible energy of 209.6.69.227, also listed above. I see now that his energy continues; this comes as no surprise.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Adavidb

I believe these same two versions were proposed on the article's talk page, to which I provided my input. In response there, Casprings acknowledged and agreed with my first point about background sentences not changing "undue weight", and retained an opinion that the background information was needed for balance. Casprings and 209.6.69.227 continued some discussion back and forth, agreeing on a need for neutrality, though not what would constitute such. I see that five arbitrators have already declined to hear this matter here, believing other means of resolution remain available. The article's talk page discussion has not been productive for these two editors to reach an agreement, leaving alternatives from a list linked below by AGK. —ADavidB 09:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Party 5}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/8/0/0)

• Decline because other venues of dispute-resolution will be sufficient. AGK [•] 00:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per AGK, an arbitration case, given the timescale of one, would actively be detrimental here. Courcelles 00:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per AGK, and as this seems to primarily be a content dispute. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline, as per my colleagues. A less drastic form of dispute resolution should be tried. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline clearly premature. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per comments above. I know this dispute is important to those involved, but much simpler dispute-resolution methods should suffice to resolve it. If a clerk or an uninvolved administrator could assist the parties toward the proper pages, it would be appreciated. I also agree that several of the editors listed should not have been named as parties to the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. There are no conduct issues - two editors are in a disagreement regarding content. Both are talking to each other in an attempt to resolve the matter, which is good. It is understood that things can get heated, and it does help to have outside views from experienced users. Try Wikipedia:Editor assistance or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline in the hope this dispute can be resolved without arbitration, which is often a lengthy and contentious process. This doesn't imply your dispute is unimportant, but merely that arbitration isn't the best way to resolve it. I would suggest opening a discussion on the Dispute resolution noticeboard, and if there are further problems you could try Request for Comment on content or to open a formal mediation case. PhilKnight (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Rschen7754 at 08:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Rschen7754 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Raul654 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wehwalt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• PumpkinSky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Br'er Rabbit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Raul654
• SandyGeorgia
• Wehwalt
• PumpkinSky
• Diannaa
• Br'er Rabbit
• Mark Arsten

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership
• Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive55
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive764#Jack Merridew and the main page featured articles
• Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Jack Merridew banned from this page
• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 12#Jack Merridew

Statement by Rschen7754

I am peripherally involved in this, as I have kept an eye on the discussions and participated as a road editor who has written two featured articles and who has a stake in the success of the featured articles program. However, I think that the entire site benefits from the success of the featured articles program, and there are some serious allegations going both ways with this highly complex issue, spanning back at least until January, and some of the socking/multiple account issues even further.

Here are some of the allegations:

• Bid to install Wehwalt as FAC director ([32])
• Harrassment by Rlevse (now PumpkinSky) / Br'er Rabbit ([33] and above diff)
• Snarky remarks by Br'er Rabbit([34])
• Raul abused his powers by protecting WP:TFA/R when INVOLVED ([35])
• Raul serving as dictator without community input([36])
• Raul has a conflict of interest in the situation ([37])

My opinion: Sandy started a post on WT:FAC in January suggesting ways to change and update the FAC process. However, editors used this to criticize the FA process and some attacked Raul and Sandy because of past grudges. It was later discovered during the RFC that followed that PumpkinSky, who took part, was really Rlevse. Sandy decided to resign after facing all this pressure (just like Karanacs (talk · contribs)). Jack Merridew plays in somewhere; apparently there is a backstory I do not know. But what made things even worse was Raul and Sandy largely acting out of their hurt.

I am not aware of every aspect of this saga, but I hope that others will bring this to light. However, this has been going on as a slow-moving battle for several months now and needs to be resolved with finality, once and for all. I believe this will be a good opportunity to get everything out in the open and have it settled by people who are tasked with looking at the evidence and allegations closely, with a dispute that the community cannot resolve.

Reading the comments below, correct, it should only be on conduct, though the question on whether Raul can ban people from TFA/R may need to be examined to reach that determination. I personally believe he can, but others seem to disagree. --Rschen7754 18:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also (apparently I didn't make this clear), I think the FA process (especially FAC) is generally working; I sent an article through there this last week with good results, and I plan to send more there. The issue is having the process disrupted by poor user conduct (like TFA/R was earlier). Perhaps I should have called this "Conduct at the Featured Article process". --Rschen7754 18:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Johnbod

Largely because of [38]. Sandy has been mostly inactive the last six months, but she definitely has a lot of stuff to say, so that is why I included her. --Rschen7754 18:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Elen of the Roads

[39] is concerning. --Rschen7754 19:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Nobody Ent

Leaving out Crisco was probably an oversight; depending on the scope of the case opened, should one be opened, he should probably be added. --Rschen7754 20:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to arbitrators: Raul hinted at taking a Wikibreak here. When I filed the request, he had only been gone for about 2 days; however, it is unclear when he will be returning at this point. I have already sent him an email, and got no response. --Rschen7754 21:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Raul has declined to provide a statement: [40] --Rschen7754 21:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from The ed17

The featured article process, taken as a whole, has functioned very well since 2004. This is reflected in the last RfC, where a large majority supported Raul's continued tenure as FA director. However, there is a vocal minority that support a more open FA process, and the individual actions taken by some of the parties above—which is in Arbcom's purview—was and still is highly questionable. I personally believe that the dialogue has reached a low enough point that an arbitration case is warranted, but it will not be clear cut or easy. An investigation here will have to trace the history of these discussions through several years of text spread across a plethora of account names. Possibly thanks to its complex nature, the community has proven unable or unwilling to tackle the issues raised here, so I urge Arbcom to accept this case. Good luck. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Johnbod

I agree with Ed's analysis above, but draw the opposite conclusion. Presenting this mess in Arbcom conditions will involve a vast amount of everybody's time and is certain to damage the FAC process, which is already under strain from lack of reviewers, probably to produce no useful remedies. Why is Sandy a party? She unfortunately resigned as an FA delegate months ago & has hardly been active on WP since. Looking at the conduct of a couple of the individuals is the most that is likely to give any useful result. It would be helpful if all the names that some of the parties have used on FA-related pages were listed with their current names above, as by no means everybody is aware of all of these. Johnbod (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AGK

(Note: I have recused as an arbitrator in this matter.) In no particular order, the problems are alleged to be:

1. Raul654's conduct as an administrator;
2. Raul's role as featured article director;
3. Raul's treatment of Br'er Rabbit;
4. Br'er Rabbit's treatment of Raul;
5. Supporters of Raul and Br'er forming 'factions' to opine in editorial processes.

In 1–4, I see nothing that requires arbitration, though if I could I would instruct Br'er and Raul to keep apart.

5 is worrying. I've noticed more such factional rivalries in recent months; because these rivalries are incredibly long-running, they may in the end require arbitration. Br'er and Raul are at the centre of these factions. However, at this stage I do not see that the rivalries significantly affect the encyclopedia, and the effort you would spend investigating this dispute does not seem to justify the limited benefit. I recommend declining the request at this time.

It would be wrong to make this request an opportunity to investigate Br'er Rabbit (Jack Merridew) and the one-account restriction. Disregarding a handful of long-term detractors of Br'er, the community has expressed no appetite to ban him, nor increase his sanctions.

Lastly, I discourage Raul, Br'er, and others from continuing to interact. The project is large enough for you all to easily avoid one another. If arbitration of this dispute does begin at any time, the process will be unpleasant and the result dis-satisfactory. Please do not twist the committee's arm into opening a case. AGK [•] 11:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles: I do not believe the community has concerns about Raul654's use of the administrative tools. The community overturned Raul's protection of the TFA page, but his actions were not an egregious violation of policy—and did seem reasonable, at least to this editor. AGK [•] 17:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

The recent flare-up from my review of the facts involve Rabbit breaking/messing up code on the process page; Raul as director of the process page taking umbrage; Rabbit not apologizing and being arguably inflammatory or dismissive; Raul taking questionable administrative action to in his view protect the process, then reporting it to ANI for "solution," then reversing his administrative action, after reluctance; discussion of "solution" (which do not appear fruitful); then here. This seems to need a process solution; whether you can provide for a way forward for it, and deal with the intendant larger behavior/history, which I am thankfully only a passing observer of, are issues you need to decide. Perhaps it's a passing thing or perhaps it needs a structural response. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dank

I'm searching around for something that will in some way clarify, diffuse or defuse some part of the conflict here, and I'm drawing a complete blank. Please don't take this case. - Dank (push to talk) 12:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Modernist

I'm not sure this is the right time for this. There has been a lot of animosity, accusation, misunderstanding, resentment, and anger displayed; which serves to blow off steam but hasn't presented any clear cut resolution to the difficulties. There should be a clearing of the air however...Modernist (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC) :This looks promising [41]...Modernist (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing nothing isn't the answer either, I wonder out loud if anything ever takes hold; the gulf continues to widen between the parties...Modernist (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting link - way before my time here [42]...Modernist (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bottom line is the character formally known as Davenbelle and dozens of other names like the rabbit he uses today - counter to all the rules on wikipedia - appears to have a vindictive side, runs rampant, and harasses certain editors like Raul and others and has a gallery of followers who pick up after him. What's the point of having rules - if this person continues to flaunt them?..Modernist (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Casliber

My feeling is that most people who would be the antagonists are more interested in building an encyclopedia most of the time, and that if things are allowed to run their course, then this will be less disruptive than a full-blown case, based on what I've seen so far. For that reason I think taking this case at this point would do more harm than good, however further developments may render that view incorrect. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - I mostly agree with AGK, though the (for lack of a better word) anti-establishment coalescence of editors is just that - i.e. people who are unhappy with the status quo for reasons both structural and personal, i.e. some long standing grievances uniting late in the peace. Problem is, this is not illegal, and I think the most that will come out of examining this with a case at the moment is probably cautions to a few antagonists....and a lot of bad blood all round. There are signs folks with opposing viewpoints are working together too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nobody Ent

1. The FA subcommunity has made it clear they are comfortable with Raul as director and there's nothing wrong with that.
2. Per local consensus the FA subcommunity may not exclude an editor from their portion of Wikipedia simply because I don't like you. Raul attempted to do so via a FPP and declaring a Rabbit ban and starting an ANI thread to validate the decision.
3. The larger community made it clear to Raul that wasn't gonna fly, and he unprotected the page and the current ANI "ban the Rabbit" discussion is running strongly oppose and will probably end soon.
4. It's all good. There's no case here. Nobody Ent 14:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754. Can you explain how you came up with the involved party list. Some of your diffs are from Conti, but they're not included; none of the diffs are from Diannaa but she is. SandyGeorgia statement names Wehwalt, Arsten, PumpkinSky and Crisco as part of the "usual band of supporters"; the first three are named but Crisco is not. @SilkTork: In my totally anecdotal observations Br'er Rabbit contributes a good amount of content and is active in Wiki-politics, often employing an agressive, snarky tone. His meme appears to be (my interpretation only) that content/quality is the most important and all those other niceties (civility, cooperation) take a lesser role. All in all, I consider him like Earth in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: mostly harmless. There's some yada-yada-yada history with ArbCom's smoke-filled back rooms and his multiple accounts which I don't know or understand (hopefully you guys do); it's my understanding all is (was) forgiven and he's now strictly using the Br'er Rabbit account. Nobody Ent 20:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt. She's coming back? brutally attacked? She's an editor on a website not Glenn Close emerging from the bath tub. Nobody Ent 17:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HJ

AGK's statement of the issues is excellent, and spot on from what I've seen. His description of rival factions forming is particularly accurate except, perhaps, that these factions have been around in some form or other for years, and they've never seen eye to eye—it's only now that they're having a very public falling out that is spilling over to various FA-related processes—but I agree it's a cause for concern. Something needs to be done about it, but I don't know if an arbitration case would bring any benefit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boing!

I'm offering a few thoughts here mainly because I commented in the current fall-out, but I only spoke about one specific aspect, and I don't want it to look like I'm in one faction or the other. My knowledge of the TFA process is not great, but I've seen a little of it. I've never interacted with Raul654 as far as I can recall, but I have great respect for the work he does and I recognize he has wide support for his current role - and from my position of relative inexperience, I share that support. I have had minor (pleasant and friendly) interaction with SandyGeorgia, and I have had brief (pleasant and friendly) interactions with Br'er Rabbit. All appear to me to be passionate about their commitment to Wikipedia, and all seem to have the best interests of the project at heart. It's a real tragedy when good people like these, and their supporters, find themselves in opposition. If everyone was in the same place, I'd suggest getting together over vast quantities of alcohol, and I'd buy the beer (I've seen that approach settle so many scores over the years - it's hard to maintain one's affronted dignity when you've wet yourself and can barely walk ;-)

The facts of the current situation have been explained well by just about everyone who has commented - AGK, NE, etc, so I have nothing to add to that. I'm not sure what can be done, but I share HJ's hope that something can. And, erm, I'm sorry I can't offer anything more constructive than that - I just wanted to share the frustration I feel when I see good people with common aims fighting each other. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK, re: "I do not believe the community has concerns about Raul654's use of the administrative tools. The community overturned Raul's protection of the TFA page, but his actions were not an egregious violation of policy—and did seem reasonable, at least to this editor". I think the implicit suggestion that an individual has been granted autocratic rights to ban anyone they wish from their area of interest and to protect pages in support of their personal position in a dispute, in violation of everything that WP:Consensus stands for, is very wrong - I cannot find anywhere where that power was explicitly given to Raul654, and I would vigorously oppose any such proposal. Limited community-granted powers are one thing, and I have no problem with that, but I really don't see where "It's yours, do as you like, in direct violation of Wikipedia policy and the ideal of consensus" has ever been granted to anyone. This part of the community very much does have a concern about Raul654's use of the administrative tools in this case. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

The matter can be resolved directly. Next time an editor with a history of questionable behavior starts harassing, either intentionally or cluelessly, they can be blocked until such time as they agree to stop misusing Wikipedia.

Raul, please don't feel any need to use administrative tools against people who are provoking you. Just ask for help.

The question of Raul's Featured Article position has already been resolved by a community discussion. Those in the minority who disagree with the outcome should stop pursuing their political ends by other means.

To the various parties who place loyalty to friends above all else, please consider my opinion that you are not helping your friends. It is better to let them face the consequences of their actions and learn from the experience.

Committee, please reject this case. I have never seen a situation where arbitration resolved a feud, unless some of the feuding parties got banned, and I don't think anybody here wants that. If you do take this case and don't issue bans, you will merely provide a venue for further feuding and intensify the mutual animosity. I don't see any value in that approach. Jehochman ^Talk 15:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. If factions are getting on each other's nerves at TFA, they might try holding discussions where nobody signs their comments. Let each comment stand on it's logical merit, regardless of who said it.

Statement by Mark Arsten

With respect to the filer, the featured article process isn't really the issue here--at heart, I think this is mostly a dispute between Br'er and Raul. Besides, FAC & FAR are running like finely oiled machines, TFA is the part of the process with ongoing problems. Hopefully, a well-crafted motion could settle things between these two valued contributors. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I encourage the committee to take action in regards to the harassment that Wehwalt has reported below. Again, hopefully via motion. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My76Strat

It would be a tremendous waste of valued resources to have a full blown case simply to reach the conclusion Mark Arsten highlighted above. These are all valued contributors and nowhere is there a record of conduct that would require the intervention of the ArbCom body or the effect of their sanctions. IMO 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mostly diffs by Br'er Rabbi

• edits by User:Br'er Rabbit on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests
• edits by User:Alarbus on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests

Most of my TFAR posts are either support/opposes or comments on issues in the articles. Last week there was a mistake made re Herne Hill railway station's date and I fixed it. BOOM! There have been a lot of complaints about the late scheduling; User talk:Dabomb87#TFA procedures, User talk:Wehwalt#Main page blurb..., User talk:Malleus Fatuorum#got a job for you..., User talk:Brianboulton#care for Mally's job?, Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Timing.

It's been said that the FA Process (FAP) is working fine. It's not. There are all manner of not-our-best issues that have long gotten through the FAC process. I pointed out major problems with a just-passed FA to GrahamColm and he called the problem "Unacceptable". Upshot; I raised the bar a bit. There are major issues in many of the FAs and this is due to the whole process and many of the key participants having little regard for anything but the brilliant prose aspects. The process is actively hostile to technical people. This is the work of Raul and Sandy, who've ruled with iron fists for years. It is within the committee's remit because it is about building up FAP as a wiki-political entity, of creating a hierarchy of editors with most dismissed as "bottom dwellers" (Sandy). Things at FAC have been improving of late, largely due to Sandy's absence. Raul still runs TFAR and that's a major mess.

Some key diffs and links re my participation at TFAR:

Herne Hill railway station:

• 00:34, 14 August 2012 Tommy20000 comments on TFA scheduled for wrong date
  edit summary: Editor check please - Herne Hill now listed on August FA schedule for 21 August
  25 August is 150th anniversary of station's opening, and is the date Tommy20000 had requested
• 00:56, 14 August 2012 Br'er Rabbit moved page Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 21, 2012 to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 25, 2012
  edit summary: station opened on 25 August 1862
• 01:00, 14 August 2012 Br'er Rabbit replies to Tommy20000 noting that bottom links will need fixing (once they are known)
  edit summary: ‎fixed
  note that Battle of Milne Bay is also requested for the 25th, but Hawkeye7 is fine with another date
• 12:35, 14 August 2012 Raul blanks the 25th
• 13:23, 14 August 2012 Br'er Rabbit comments on blanking
• 15:37, 14 August 2012 Raul comments that he intends to run it, doesn't want it scheduled out-of-order.
• 18:33, 14 August 2012 Br'er Rabbit comments on the immensity of that problem
  edit summary: moar R[a]ulz...
• 18:47, 14 August 2012 Diannaa comments on flip-side of problem, mentioning Wehwalt's Avery Brundage
  edit summary: It's a problem from the requester's point of view.
• 18:59, 14 August 2012 Br'er Rabbit comments on the likelihood of Brundage actually being selected, linking Raul's comment @ Wehwalt "Pot. Kettle. Black."
  edit summary: Ignore All R[a]ulz
  • See: WT:TFAR#noms...
  • See: WT:TFAR#Timing, too

21 August:

• 12:38, 14 August 2012 Raul replaces 21 August with Olmec colossal heads
• 19:15, 14 August 2012 Sturmvogel add a request for USS New Ironsides on 21 August, the date vacated by Br'er Rabbit's move of Herne Hill
• 19:26, 14 August 2012 Br'er Rabbit supports Ironsides, noting the conflict with Teh Heads
• 20:29, 14 August 2012 Sturmvogel comments on WT:TFAR about the "bottleneck"
• 20:35, 14 August 2012 Br'er Rabbit comments suggesting move of Teh Heads
  edit summary: {{sofixit}}
• 20:38, 14 August 2012 Br'er Rabbit extends comment re the bottleneck
  edit summary: Teh bottleneck is The Dog in the Manger
• 20:50, 14 August 2012 Bencherlite removes Ironsides from TFAR
  edit summary: remove USS New Ironsides, August 21 has been scheduled already
• 21:50, 14 August 2012 Raul removes fix suggestion by Br'er Rabbit
  edit summary: Rv Jack

The ed17 has fixed 21 August by scheduling USS New Ironsides:

• 05:13, 18 August 2012 The ed17 replaces Teh Heads with Ironsides
  edit summary: replace with article that has sesquicentennial date connection; have emailed Raul with no response; moved Olmec to 23 August
• 05:13, 18 August 2012 The ed17 re-schedules Teh Heads for 23 August
  edit summary: move from 21 August

25 August:

• 15:28, 19 August 2012 Dabomb87 has scheduled 25 August as Herne Hill railway station, again. He copyedited the blurb, which I've no issue with, and fixed the "Recently featured" links to now-known pages. This validates that my move was correct, as The ed17's scheduling of 21 August validated my suggestion to Sturmvogel re Ironsides as being correct. Being "correct" is supposed to be important. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's more, of course; all my posts were removed from TFAR and the page full protected against me when I disputed it. The arbitrary page ban that was shot down at ANI. Meh.

This is not the first time Raul has misused tools regarding me:

Alarbus:

• 11:01, 28 March 2012 Alarbus retires after email discussion with Amalthea urging it
• 12:55, 28 March 2012 Wehwalt protects User:Alarbus
  edit summary: Protected User:Alarbus: I believe it's warranted. Keep it the way he wanted it. (‎[edit=sysop] (indefinite) ‎[move=sysop] (indefinite))
• 17:00, 30 March 2012 Raul sock tags it anyway
  edit summary: {{sockpuppetconfirmed}}
  "confirmed" would be per:
  • 11:33, 28 March 2012 The Call of the Wild adds a category
    edit summary: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jack Merridew
• 17:00, 30 March 2012 Raul blocks, overriding Amalthea's arrangement with me
• 18:46, 30 March 2012 Wehwalt unprotects User:Alarbus
  edit summary: Unprotected User:Alarbus
• 05:42, 21 May 2012 Gerda Arendt restores user page
  edit summary: older version "retired" is more polite
• 17:59, 27 May 2012 Raul reverts Gerda
  edit summary: Polite is irrelevant -- this is a sock, it gets tagged for everyone to see.
• 18:29, 27 May 2012 Raul reverted by Teh Wabbit
  edit summary: rv; quit wheel warring, Raul: Wehwalt: believe it's warranted. Keep it the way he wanted it.

The Call of the Wild:

• 11:36, 28 March 2012 The Call of the Wild also retires after email discussion with Amalthea urging it
  edit summary: retired
• 14:12, 28 March 2012 Amalthea protects User:The Call of the Wild
  edit summary: Protected User:The Call of the Wild: Let's leave it at that. (‎[edit=sysop] (indefinite) ‎[move=sysop] (indefinite))
• 17:08, 30 March 2012 Raul sock tags it anyway
  edit summary: {{sockpuppetconfirmed}}
  "confirmed" would be per:
  • 11:32, 28 March 2012 Diff of User:The Call of the Wild
    edit summary: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jack Merridew

Amalthea @Raul:

• 14:50, 1 April 2012 Raul queries Amalthea
  section header: "Jack Merridew / user:Uncontroversial Obscurity"
• 18:07, 1 April 2012 Amalthea replies to Raul
  quote, in part: "Quite in general though, I don't think it's good or helpful for you to do any kind of cleanup there, I believe you and Alarbus were in a discussion that apparently was rather personal/emotional, and this situation is complicated enough as it is."
  • Amalthea's archive

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Appointed Forever

Undeletion needed. See this request of Dabomb87. The history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 25, 2012 has been deleted thus breaking several diffs, above. I don't know Dabomb87 and they've mostly been inactive of late, so I'm repeating my request here: The history of this page should be restored. It is not "Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup". Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• [I hope it's okay in this case to comment in someone else's section, and my comment is: Done.] - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terima kasih. No worry about my section; it's a wiki and this is the most apt spot for your post. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wehwalt

In my opinion there is an issue regarding the FA process which it would be a good thing if the committee would review. Because those who say everything is hunky dory there are mistaken.

I do not feel, first of all, that I have anything to fear from this committee. I called, in January, for changes in the FA processes I felt would improve them. My position did not prevail. So I did what we are supposed to do under such circumstances. I shut up about it. I shut up even in the face of sniping from SandyGeorgia and Raul. I shut up when Raul overrode my protection of Alarbus's user page to blank it, even though he did not ask my consent and must have known I would not support it. I shut up to keep the peace, even when other editors complained about short notice of TFAs. I shut up when I placed Washington quarter on the TFA/R template for possible nomination on August 1 (the 80th anniversary of release) and Raul immediately took it and ran it on a day of his choice. Dianna discusses the Hobart matter below, I like to be able to watch a TFA to take care of any unexpected matters, and that time I couldn't. I had been planning to go back to Paterson to do more research on Hobart before the TFA, I didn't get to do that. Apparently, I'm a party because SandyGeorgia keeps mentioning me as disrupting FAC (!) in a rather lengthy screed which is linked at the top of this page. That's not the first time she's mentioned me in such an unflattering connection. The fact that we now know it won't be the last is one reason this committee must act.

I have never proposed Raul's ouster, I take no shame in saying that I have sought to improve the process, that the Featured Article Director, if we are to have one (do we need one? What does Raul do that is indispensable, assuming there are active delegates?), be fair, active, and competent. That he move to push the process ahead, not let it drift. To be a uniter, not a divider. But so what if I did. What if I had called for his ouster? What if I did that now? Arbitrators. In a few months, those of you who must seek another term to continue your service, and choose to do so, will likely have some people calling for your ouster. I say that not because of anything in particular you've done, but because it is par for the course. How is Raul different, that calling for his ouster is high treason? Let alone, just calling for reforms in the process ... These things must be unobjectionable to and indeed protected by this committee and this community, as long as people do so civilly. We all seek to improve processes, and there are sometimes disagreements, but civil discussion is the path to improving this project. I will go so far as to say that meeting such efforts to improve things with unbridled, unrelenting, and unending hostility, damages Wikipedia.

What I proposed, civilly, and without rancor at the AN/I thread, was bringing in someone responsible to the community to deal with it when Raul is either late or has a conflict of interest. That diminishes Raul's power only to the extent Raul lets it through inaction or hostility, and on his head be it then. It's an idea. Is there something wrong with the idea? Maybe, there are always things that have to be worked out. Should it subject me to the heavy hand of ArbCom? No.

One thing I'd like to mention, which is the myth which is being peddled that somehow this began when I and some partners in crime hijacked an RfC which was supposed to be for quite something else. No. This began when TCO submitted his report on the FA process, which Sandy did not like and which she brutally attacked him for, but she also conceded a RFC on the FA leadership process. She tried to start the discussion some hours after I had declared a wikibreak but fortunately (or not) I looked in on it. Every aspect of that was attacked or filibustered by Sandy. It's very difficult to bring up issues of concern when she's going off every night and you don't want it brought upon you.

Which leads me to the question I have for ArbCom, and why you must take this case: She's coming back. Do you think this is going away?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Diannaa

Wikipedia is one of the top viewed websites in the world. The main page received 9.5 million hits in the last 30 days! But there's a problem: the daily featured article, chosen by Raul, is not being selected far enough ahead to give interested editors a chance to check over the articles to do polishing or prep work. Examples (there's other examples; this is just a selection):

• July 4: Garret Hobart (Wehwalt): chosen 12:23 July 3 (12 hours ahead of time); Editor notified: 23:01 on July 3 - 59 minutes notice. The user was on vacation with limited internet at the time. His reaction can be viewed here.
• July 5: Hygeberht (Ealdgyth) chosen 13:18, July 4 (11 hours ahead of time); editor notified 23:01 July 4 - 59 minutes notice
• July 19: Manchester Ship Canal (Malleus) chosen 12:07 on July 18 (12 hours ahead of time). Editor got 59 minutes notice. The editor's reaction can be viewed here.
• August 1: Poppy Meadow (Malleus) chosen 15:43 July 31 (8 hours ahead of time); editor notified 23:01 July 31 - 59 minutes notice
• August 2: Brunette Coleman (Brian Boulton) chosen 12:02 Aug 1 (12 hours ahead of time); user notified 23:01 August 1 - 59 minutes notice. User's reaction: Diff of User talk:Brianboulton
• August 3: Melville Island (Nova Scotia) (Nikkimaria) chosen 16:18 August 2 (8 hours ahead of time); user notified 23:01 August 2 - 59 minutes notice
• August 4: Song thrush (JimFBleak) chosen 11:52 Aug 3; user notified 23:01 Aug 3 - 59 minute's notice

Yet the notice sent out by the bot is worded as though there's all the time in the world to prep the article or even request another date. It's not a new problem. Also, a recent complaint about an image could not be addressed effectively as the article was already on the main page (this was the incident that drew me to TFAR recently; I nominated a couple of articles). Choosing the article of the day and writing the blurb is practically Raul's sole activity on the website. He isn't visibly involved in the other featured article processes such as evaluating featured article candidates. Br'er Rabbit's recent activity at WP:TFAR was as a result of his trying to make a correction when Raul mistakenly scheduled Herne Hill railway station for Aug 21, when the 150th anniversary of its opening is on the 25th. Raul used admin tools to fully protect the page; consensus was reached on ANI that Raul has to consider himself "involved" as far as Jack is concerned; this makes sense in light of the fact that they were on opposite sides in the failed attempt at FA reform in January. This is the second administrative misuse of tools on Raul's part with regards to this user; he should not have blocked Alarbus on March 30, either. There's been some high feelings on both sides, for sure, but incorrect use of tools needs to be taken very seriously.

If Raul's sole on-wiki participation in the FA process is to choose the daily featured article, and it's the opinion of several editors that the job is being done inadequately, we really can't put to bed the notion of FA reform. The pages could be redesigned to make them more user-friendly, for example, or the process of selecting the daily article could be done by consensus rather than fiat. I'm not heavily involved in the FA process so I can't guess what other changes might help make the process run better. People resist change, so it won't be painless. But there's been many positive changes since January and some melting of barriers between the two camps can be observed; Ceoil and Br'er exchanging banter on Br'er's talk page, and Truthkeeper's recent collaboration suggestion are two recent examples. There's behavioural issues too, but that's not an Arbcom remit until other dispute resolution frameworks have been tried. My opinion is that the community can continue to work on this issue without arbcom intervention at this point. Positions on both sides are not as clearly drawn as they were a few months ago, and hopefully the matter can be sorted out without an arbcom case. -- Dianna (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by WaitingForConnection

For all the drama surrounding it, Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership itself was surprisingly well managed. The first question was if anything worded with a bias in favour of an elected position, so I can't see the argument that a pro-Raul clique was dictating the discussion. That RfC showed that the community is capable of deciding how it wants TFA to operate, while Raul's unprotection of TFAR in response to the recent ANI discussion is further proof of the community's ability to handle TFA. In summary, the community has proven itself competent in this area. There was drama along the way, but that would be dwarfed by the amount of drama a large Arbcom case would cause.

Raul's reason for his actions is that he believed he had authority to act as he saw fit at TFA . If there is evidence to suggest that this was dishonest (I haven't seen any), then an RfC/U should probably be initiated. If the claim was made in good faith but incorrect, an RfC on the TFA director's role is a clear prerequisite. One way or another, the community options to deal with Raul's actions issue have not been exhausted, and there is good reason to believe that a community process could work. Thus, at this point in time I don't think Arbcom has a mandate to look at conduct which relates primarily or exclusively to TFA. Strip that out, and I don't see the point to a case. I think Courcelles has reached a similar conclusion in a different way. —WFC— 01:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Truthkeeper88

I deeply regret seeing this situation at this point, but it's become impossible to avoid that there's a behavioral issue (not from a single editor by any means) along the lines of "my way or the highway" with a disregard for consensus building or other community processes, which has been ongoing for months, has depleted morale, most likely has been a cause for editor retirements, and which should be addressed. I'd urge the committee to frame the scope and identify what is in their remit and focus on the behaviors only.

@Tony1 - I tried by offering to build a bridge. The offer wasn't accepted. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tony1

I'm struggling to see how an ArbCom case would be helpful. Have other avenues been tried? And isn't it all blown out of proportion? Tony (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Brianboulton

I agree with Tony, above. I am cross that Raul seems unwilling to act in regard to the unsatifactory notifications on TFAs, but I am not going to lose sleep dwelling on this grievance. I am bored with Brer Rabbit's provocative and often insensitive editing style, but so what? Life (and editing time) is too short, and we need our best editors at work on the encyclopedia, not tied up here. I fear this process will not change anything other than to foster more ill will; it should end now. Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nick-D

I agree with Mark Arsten's comments above: I'm regularly involved in FACs, and have WP:FAC on my watchlist, and was blissfully unaware that this drama was going on - it isn't spilling over in the the FA process in any noticeable fashion. If its a continuation of the inter-editor conflicts which were going on late last year/earlier this year some kind of intervention to get the parties to drop it might be helpful though. Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MistyMorn

For what it's worth, Modernist has asked me to comment here, presumably in relation to a very negative interaction with Br'er Rabbit which began on Talk:Georg Solti (an article with which I was indirectly involved [43]), where I argued for "a culture of respect towards all Wikipedia contributors, including those few who are capable of bringing pages to FA." [44]. The interaction rapidly deteriorated after the departure from Wikipedia of User:Tim riley, the main author of the FA. (For my interactions with Br'er Rabbit, see [45], [46], and the first portion of this ANI thread.) Irrespective of any possible contributory role that Br'er Rabbit may or may not have played in the broader circumstances surrounding the loss to Wikipedia of an excellent collegial editor of FA, my own overall experience of these recent events has been one of deep disillusionment with some of the more unsavoury aspects of the working environment on Wikipedia (as I have recently tried to explain [47] and respond to [48] elsewhere). —MistyMorn (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Anthonyhcole

There is an editor behaviour problem at WP:TFA. It is not something that ANI can fix, due to the strong partisan affinities. It may "fix" itself, but that fix may well be a triumph of mediocrity, or worse. Would you please look at this? You probably only need to address TFA, as the rest of the FA process seems to be running well. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recuse. NW (Talk) 16:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/3/2/6)

• Waiting for other comments. My preliminary thoughts are that the process itself is not quite within the Committee's scope, though conduct of those involved in the process would be if there is evidence of cause for concern. I'm unclear of the conduct concerns regarding Raul. The RfC was strongly supportive of him, and the difs are vague in regards to evidence of poor conduct sufficient for an ArbCom case. The concerns regarding Jack Merridew/Br'er Rabbit seem more significant, and I'd be interested in hearing other opinions on his conduct. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could be persuaded otherwise and revisit this request, but at the moment I'm not seeing enough conduct issues or disruption for an ArbCom case. Decline. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Recuse. AGK [•] 11:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Awaiting further statements. My initial view is similar to Johnbod's - accepting this case as presented will take up a lot of everyone's time for little benefit. A more focussed case, with fewer parties, may well be preferable. PhilKnight (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Waiting for more comments per Silk. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. What conduct issues do seem to be noted here do not appear to be severe enough to merit arbitration. The allegations of administrative conduct against Raul do not seem to be terribly concerning, in light of the fact that he brought them to ANI for review and did undo his own actions after discussion. The conduct issues between Raul and Br'er/Jack can be resolved at a lower level, I believe. And issues revolving around how the FA process is administered appears to be outside the remit of this Committee. The only matter of concern is the factionalism as noted by AGK, however if it is limited to the FA area it does not unduly impact the rest of the project, and hopefully lessened interactions between Raul and Br'er/Jack will mitigate that as well. As such, I do not see the value in accepting a case here at this time (although will reconsider once statements from Raul and Br'er/Jack are posted), however I would note the following:
  • Raul, I would agree with Jehochman in counseling you to seek assistance from others when facing difficulties with other users. Avoiding the impression of being involved aside, it provides a second perspective into the situation which can help clear your own mind about it.
  • Raul and Br'er/Jack, if it comes down to it, I would likely not oppose a formal interaction ban between the two of you. I would hope that the two of you can agree to let matters drop, but if that's what it takes to avoid this boiling into an arbitration case that nobody would appreciate, so be it. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Awaiting more statements, but one thing that isn't clear is this: Is there a deeper issue with Raul's use of the admin toolkit than one allegedly poor protection, or was this just an isolated incident? There's a mess here, but much is clear, but this issues of how the FA process should be organized and ran is well outside this scope of any case, and it is not at all clear that when you strip all the things we aren't empowered to rule on, if there's enough left to make this a useful exercise. Courcelles 17:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept on a narrow basis that the dispute between Raul and Br'er needs to end. Not willing to accept a case on the entire FA process, though, as that is well out of scope. Courcelles 17:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Awaiting further statements from the principally involved editors. Agreed that we have no jurisdiction over the process per se, and if we do decide to take a case, it will focus only on conduct. Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Awaiting further statements, preferably keeping the bad faith in check. Per Courcelles I'd be interested to know if the dark mutterings about Raul have any validity - but put up or shut up please, don't just make riddling hints. Equally, just pointing to the past history of the individual behind the Br'er Rabbit account gets no one any farther. Show evidence of actual disruption now. And if this is arising out of frustration with the TFA process, then be honest about that too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 18:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting statement from Raul, but it appears that this arises from frustration about the timing of setting up Today's Featured Articles, compounded by generally poor relations between two of the parties. It seems to me that scheduling TFA is a simpler 'press office' type function, separate from the more detailed and technical work involved in making sure an article is fit for the main page, and the community should be able to deal with the problem if the 'press officer' is having difficulties. While a motion of the 'Raul and Br'er Rabbit should not behave like egits towards each other" type could be considered, do we really need something so egg-sucky? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Recuse as to Br'er Rabbit in light of recent negative interactions between me and this editor. Decline as to all other issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The overarching issue here, which is one of fundamental importance, is whether there is behavior on the featured-article-related-pages that is driving some of our best content authors away from the FA process or, what will ultimately lead to the same thing, damaging their enjoyment of participating in the process without any offsetting benefit to the encyclopedia. From multiple sources of anecdotal evidence (few of them contained in this request for arbitration), I am concerned that the answer is yes ... but I don't see much that an arbitration case can do to help reduce this problem, and I do see much that a case might do to worsen it. Focusing on points such as whether Raul654 had authority to page-protect TFA for a couple of hours, while I could go on about them at some length, will not help the community come to grips with the more fundamental issues at play. A bottom line for me is that the RfC earlier this year endorsed the overall structure of the FA processes as they currently exist, and that outcome should be respected, but that does not negate the possibility that improvements should be sought on the functioning of some of these processes (giving greater advance notice to the authors of TFAs is one example; editors who are persistently irascible acting less so is another). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment now, leaning toward acceptance - The interactions and conduct at the heart of this request have been festering for almost half a year, and have had a ripple effect through the project. I have not to this point seen a clear enough summary of relevant facts to unreservedly accept a case; however, only two of the identified parties (and none of the key parties) have commented at this point. Risker (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• My first thought is that there should be trout slappings ordered in bulk quantities and handed out liberally. I would suggest that the parties move away from fighting over process and turn towards what the laudable goal of FA is, to provide a goal towards improving Wikipedia articles, and to provide a bit of recognition towards those editors who produce some of the bewst work that Wikipedia has to offer. I'd suggest the parties disengage voluntarily, or be made to disengage. I would also note that the FA process itself, its rules and regulations, and its membership are outside of our scope. Like Risker above, I'm leaning towards acceptance, but I will hold off on formally voting to await more statements SirFozzie (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]