Mikkalai no longer has the statements displayed on his talk page. This removes the first two problems mentioned above, which were the most serious two problems. Also, he has responded in one way or another to some comments on his talk page, (for example, showing awareness of this arbitration request,) so he is not totally withdrawn from communication and therefore the third problem mentioned above, which was less serious in any case in my opinion, may not be an issue.00:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've struck out my statements above about Poon. My mention of Poon was really more of an example of the kind of thing that can go unresolved if an administrator doesn't communicate, than as a problem I considered to be of any significant level of importance in itself. I realize now that the reasons and manner in which I mentioned it could be considered wikilawyering, and I would like to apologize to everyone and especially to Mikkalai for mentioning it at all and for neglecting to label it as (from my point of view) merely an example.00:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A sarcastic edit on Mikkalai's talk page turned out to have been in response to one of the generalized insults on that talk page. What we're seeing here, therefore, is reverberation: insults in response to insults in response to insults, etc.00:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with statements on this page by Jerochman ("I consider this to be a great improvement. ... Addressing concerns by action can be sufficient."), Charles Matthews ("Various explanations, ranging from burn-out to life events ... I would need much more in the way of failings of the trust ..."), Sam Blacketer ("Mikka needs support, not an arbitration case.") and especially by Antandrus ("We need to give him some space.") --Coppertwig (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to post a proposal within approx. 1 hour.01:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC) --Coppertwig (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC) I hereby withdraw (almost all of) my above statement and have struck it out, because I don't wish to be personally involved in playing that role in this process. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a proposal on the talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SqueakBox

In light of Jpgordon's statement I would support acceptance of a case re admin action issues here but ideally renamed to Rfa/admin responsibilities or something along those line, we've had rfa:The troubles and some kind of naming that doesn't actually mention anyone's name would be appropriate, albeit involving the issues others and Ryan address here. Mikkalai is clearly one of our most experienced editors and admins whom I became aware of as a vandalism fighting newbie when he dropped me a note reminding me to check the contribs of obvious vandals in order to revert all their bad calls (so Mikkalai is more than capable of and has a track record of helping out newbies). I also think we need to be very aware that Mikkalai is not a native English speaker nor has he spent substantial time in an English speaking environment so we need to not read too much into his words (and I say this as someone with experience in this language area). Otherwise I am definitely in agreement with Guy's statement in this case, and endorse what he says above, but re Jpgordon if this was to become a case concerning how admins should behave I would certainly have evidence, and while involving one other particular admin its not that admin who I want to see censored but I would like to see certain issues re admin behaviour clarified by the arbcom, and these issues are here too. I would add that Ryan was right in bringing this here and not to an Rfc. That would have been highly inappropriate in this case and mediation attempts are very evident in Mikkalai's talk history. What I am uncomfotable with is this being a case involving just Ryan amnd Mikkalai and I think the list of involved parties needs greatly expanding, starting with Marskell, perhaps all of us who haven't posted as uninvolved in this section, and that is only a start. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved ^demon

While I think all users (especially administrators) should leave lines of communication open to others. This helps foster collaboration and keeps the atmosphere open and inviting. This being said, under no circumstances should a user be required to talk with others if they do not wish to do so. If there are issues of abuse of powers, that is for another discussion. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Viridae

Communication is paramount from an admin. Refusal to communicate regarding your actions is a big problem as others have stated. However, it is less of problem, that should arbcom desysop him over this, I am sure they would be happy to grant his tool back at a later stage if he pledges to communicate about his admin actions in the manner expected by the community. Viridae^Talk 21:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support R. Baley's suggestions below. Make perfect sense and run along the lines of what I was suggesting. Viridae^Talk 08:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved GRBerry

The Gustafson RFC followed by RFAR would be the closest precedent - an admin who was repeatedly deleting their talk page without communicating. At ANI, I encouraged going to RFC and then RFAR. Instead we got another ANI thread. Lets use the dispute resolution system... which means going to RFC before coming here. GRBerry

Statement by uninvolved Wikidemo

As a non-admin with some interest in administrative matters, I can attest that when administrators act arbitrarily, uncivilly, unpredictably, against policy, without communication, etc., it causes some serious stress, erosion of faith in the project, and a desire to spend time somewhere else. So the harm to the encyclopedia is magnified greatly beyond the weight of the specific administrative action at hand.

We cannot let this one sit. The tools are Wikipedia's to distribute as the community sees fit to help the project, not the property of one administrator to do with as he pleases. Our system is often ineffective for bringing problem administrators into line. It would be a shame if we cannot handle such a simple, obvious case.

I see only two possible resolutions. Either Mikkalai accepts the duties that come as a requirement of using administrative tools, in this case communication, or he does not. If he will not use the tools in the way required by policy he must not use the tools. If he declares that he is never again going to use the tools properly, then after making all reasonable patient efforts to encourage him to change his mind we should take them back. It's his choice. His passive-aggressive reaction to the AN/I case and this Arbcom request so far[11] is not encouraging.

While this case is ongoing there ought to be an injunction that if Mikkalai again uses tools he must respond reasonably to any good faith attempt to communicate on the subject and not act to discourage inquiries. As a resolution that injunction should be made long-term, with the additional proviso that if he breaks the injunction or does not resume normal use of tools after a reasonable period (say one month), he is desysopped without the need for further proceedings.

Mikkalai is (apparenty) a grown man, and we are not baby sitters. It would be swell if a colleague could talk him out of his tree on this, but I think we've gone pretty far as it is. So other than giving it a little time, I don't see the use of making any official offer of compassion part of the formal resolution.

Statement by partially-involved User:Save Us 229

I'm not going to elaborate much here on the requests page with diffs and the such (I will save that for the evidence page if this passes, and it should).

Mikkalai has been an established member of this community for a long time and one and a few when it comes to dealing with trolling editors and NPOV pushers, but his conduct has been hurtful to this project over the last few weeks inparticular. There are multiple threads on WP:AN/I that have detailed Mikkalai being very incivil with comments going as far as an editor feeling physically threatened by what Mikkalai said. After that incident happened, Mikkalai decided that communication was going to cease between himself and the Wikipedia community, which (next to civility) is the key issue surrounding this case. It was previously decided at the Arbitration that Gustafson was temporarily desysopped for being unresponsive to the community and this is the same principle being applied to this request for arbitration.

A week into his, literal, pledge of muteness, he made controversial actions leading up to another AN/I thread which almost concluded with the consensus of giving Mikkalai a warning that furthuring admin actions and Xfd closures without any discussion, that he will be brought to arbitration. While that discussion was ongoing is when I became partially involved with the editor.

Mikkalai decided to semi-protect the article Poon. Normally this wouldn't be a problem without communication of some kind, but he semi-protected the article after only one instance of a user adding something strange (the edit by the anonymous IP address should have been removed, but I'm not sure you could even classify it as vandalism). The main reasons protection are added, I felt, were violated since this was a simple, isolated incident (any other kind of request for protection would had been rightfully denied). Not only was it an inappropriate protection, he protected the one minor incident until May 2, 2008 (over 2 months). I felt it was inappropriate and asked him to remove it. His reply was to simply revert my message, as he has done with everyone else's messages to him in the week. The article was unprotected by an uninvolved administrator after he/she determined it was also inappropriate. His reply to myself and the unprotecting administrator in an edit summary was "you wikidrama lovers may keep bullshit off this page yourselves".

I ask the ArbCom to accept this case to review the actions of Mikkalai fully to determine whether or not he should keep his sysop bit. Thank you, — Save_Us † 03:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel

I ask for the Committee to once more consider Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Vested Contributors, this time specifically related to those involved in nationalistic areas and the level of communication required, both in relation to each other and as independant issues. Although slightly outside the scope of this case, archiving conventions and ignoring talk page messages may also be a point to consider during this case (given the recent incident involving NYScholar (talk · contribs) as discussed on various noticeboards at length without a suitable resolution). Daniel (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved MBisanz

I've followed this case off and on for the past couple of weeks. Outside of it, I don't believe I've ever interacted with this administrator though. I would urge the committee to accept this case to address the issue of: how much communication must an administrator provide. I know some admins request semi-protection of their talk-page (frowned upon), others don't enable email (RL concerns), and others don't notify users of actions (various situations and reasons). Pre-emptively announcing that one will not communicate with regard to actions they take can have a chilling effect on new users whose editting is subject to his actions and do not know that this is the exception to how admins respond, rather than the rule. Additionally, I am aware that many of the notifications are strongly suggested, but not required. I would suggest that in circumstances where an action is not bright-line action, say deleting an unsourced semi-notable article or blocking an unwarned, non-repeat vandalizing account or protecting a page one has editted, things like CSD/PROD and tags should be used to eliminate any element of bias or attempts to confuse the targeted user into not challenging the decision. There are a couple of administrator actions performed that I question, but I'll wait to see if the case is accepted before going and digging through all the diffs and logs. MBisanz ^talk 05:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that FayssalF has specifically mentioned evidence of abuse of power as a factor in taking the case, I'll submit my diffs here, now.

• One week block of user after these three vandalizing edits [12], [13], [14] and no warnings. Probably a good block, but given this user did not have a past history of abuse, I believe at least a warning or explanation of why he was blocked (after it had been done), would be the appropriate action.
• 2 week IP block for BLP vandalism. Given that its an IP, an unblock, IP-registering, or other such tag should have been placed in case this is a dynamic or gateway IP.
• deleted unsourced non-BLP stub. Since restored after I mentioned it on ANI. I feel this is a semi-abuse of admin powers, as it could have been simply redirected (as was ultimately done), or Prod'd for possible review by creator.
• Deletion of article created in 2005 Followed by the recreation of a stubbified version by Mikkalai. The issue is that the recreated stub did not (and does not) include sections that were not copyright vios.

I've avoided checking admin log history before Feb 20 as I am not certain if the issue is merely the warning that appeared aroung that date on his talk page (I believe) or rather a series of prior incident reports, that I did not comment on. MBisanz ^talk 07:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved R. Baley

Though it looks like this case will be accepted, I don't think it has to go that far. I don't know this administrator, but I did somewhat see/follow the issues that lead to this point. Clearly, no one disputes (I think) that Mikka has been a valuable editor/admin for wikipedia. I don't know what has led to the anger he has now, but surely it will pass. To that end, and to minimize grief for all concerned, I propose that:

1. Arbcom simply ask Mikka to relinquish the bit
2. In return for this gesture, the Arbcom passes a simple resolution stating that Mikka can get it back anytime he likes, after a short period, by simply asking. . . along with a simple statement that he is no longer angry and intends to discuss admin actions as needed. In short, make a clear exception to the "resigning under a cloud" rule for admin re-instatement.

This solution, I think, brings the drama to a halt and this situation cries out for a quick simple resolution. Anything else, and I believe you will permanently lose this administrator/editor. Is that what people want?
R. Baley (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Antandrus

In general, on Wikipedia, we spend way too much time on people's behavioral quirks, making them into big dramas, instead of focusing on building an encyclopedia. Mikka is continuing to do good work. We need to give him some space. He's upset, and people poking him with a stick are only making the situation worse. Give him some space. Revisit this in a couple weeks if anyone perceives then that there has been a continuing problem, or if there is actual evidence of abusive use of admin tools. I don't see it; I see a bunch of people who do not quite have the life-perspective to put this incident in its proper context, all gathering together and trying to arrange a public beating of one of our finest, longest-term, and most prolific contributors. Something is going on with Mikkalai which is beyond our ability to see, and the compassionate thing to do is to give him some space, call off the lynch mob, and let him continue to work. The amount of work Mikka has done on the project in the last five years is incredible; it probably exceeds the total of all those poking at him put together. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Wknight94

There has still been no example given above for abuse of administrator rights - above or at any of the previous venues. Protection of Poon? I see worse protections every day. I'm scared to say it but I'm starting to agree with Mikkalai's claims of paranoia, kangaroo courts, and packs of hyenas. I'm also scared of what might happen if I make a tough call in an administrative action and then go on an incommunicado two-week cruise. Will I come back to find an emergency ArbCom started (and finished) and myself desysopped and banned for not communicating?! This whole affair has been a pre-emptive attack against someone who has done nothing wrong except use some colorful verbiage. He was even blocked for his choice of words even though his colorful verbiage was in response to others' colorful verbiage. I would be livid too - only I might be gone. The fact that he's remained present after the block to continue more of his fantastic contributions is a testament to him and a reward to us that we have not earned in the least. He should get a medal, not an ArbCom case. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lawrence Cohen

As the person Mikka made the ill-advised throat-cutting comment to, all I have to say here is that it would save a lot of future trouble is the AC would clarify point blank what are the expectations not just of communications that admins are required to uphold, but also of civility. I ask not just in light of this case, but the current RFC for JzG. It seems that some favor giving admins a wider range in what sorts of communications from them are acceptable, and Guy's own deleted commentary from this page alludes to the fact that "college age" editors may get "hysterical" over "invective". I put forward that "invective" for the sake of invective as these "older" admins seem to think is fine, is frankly not. The AC should clarify if the type of tone and language that some users seem to favor is acceptable. For me, you can tell me to fuck myself in an edit summary--I won't be personally offended, but I will be offended by the fact that it's just rude. You can't expect others to comport themselves to your invective and nasty tone; you comport yourself to the community norms. I ask the AC to clarify--is this kind of tone and language acceptable for any user, let alone an Administrator? We have users here as young as 10, 11 years old. Is it acceptable for an Administrator to be possibly telling a 10 year old to fuck himself? Who wants to answer the OTRS complaint from that child's parent? Lawrence § t/e 23:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hux

Imo, the fact that Mikkalai has done a lot of great work should not be relevant to whether or not ArbCom takes this case. I won't link to specifics at this time (since this is not the time for presentation of evidence), but I think it's important to note that this ArbCom request is the culmination of multiple incidents that have resulted in a series of complaints about Mikkalai to AN/I, none of which have been resolved (indeed, Mikkalai himself is ignoring any and all requests to take part in such resolution). Some of those incidents are related to incivility, others are related to misuse of admin tools, others are related to ignoring established Wikipedia practices, and still others are related to the question of how admins should conduct themselves. If any editor is consistently abusing the process and ignoring established policy, it should not matter whether that editor has made a hundred edits or a hundred thousand edits. If any admin is doing the same while also misusing their tools and either ignoring or acting belligerently towards anyone who would question such use, it should not matter whether that admin has made a hundred edits or a hundred thousand edits. I think we need ArbCom to take this case not only to address the specific incidents - which are serious enough in and of themselves, imo - but also to make it very clear how admins are expected to behave. There are much larger issues at stake than simply one editor's actions. -- Hux (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some evidence (as requested by User:FayssalF below):

• Page protected the Poon article for more than two months on the basis of presumed vandalism by a new, anonymous user who in all likelihood simply made an honest mistake. (Note also his reply in the edit summary after another admin lifted the protection.)
• Threatened to block a user purely for not citing his additions to an article (bad enough in itself, but even worse when it's clear that the user in question was in the process of making extensive updates to the article and had simply not yet got around to adding references).
• Has consistently blocked users without leaving any message on their talk page telling them they've been blocked or what they can do about it. (Coupled with his refusal to communicate this is a much bigger issue than it otherwise would be.)
• Laid down the law regarding a content dispute in manner that suggested a complete disregard of WP:OWN and WP:CONSENSUS. (And his reply when called on that is worth noting too.)
• Made a not so subtle threat that a user might find himself with his throat cut (archive link, search on "throat cut" to see the post).

Finally, contrary to the statements above by Coppertwig and Jehochman, Mikkalai is still pledging not to communicate with anyone "beyond writing edit summaries and log comments, optionally augmented with explanations in talk pages". The only difference is that he has removed all the personal attacks from this pledge. -- Hux (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by StC, and answer to Ryan

"So what do you suggest we do now"

Grow a pair and block him. Why does ArbCom need to act on this? Being an admin is no big deal right? What would you do if a non-admin user was being a non-communicative jerk? You'd block them. No big deal, right? (note: I'm making no judgment on Mikkalai, myself, I have no idea, he may be exactly right. I'm just saying it doesn't take ArbCom to act on incivil people, admins or no.) SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Second look

Having taken a second look, I see that Mikkalai has made a statement on his talk page expressing frustration. Among other things he said, "There is a an alarmingly visible category of people with extremely high ratio of their edit count in pages which has nothing to do with actual content creation." Tru dat! Speak on, brutha.

Advice to ArbCom

Decline this unless someone can show evidence of abuse by Mikkalai

Advice to Mikkalai

Come back and talk. Explaining the use of admin tools is an important duty of the tools. If you don't want to explain your use of the tools, then have another admin do it. Report what you would have done to various noticeboards. If the noticeboards don't take the right action, or don't act fast enough - hey, welcome to the club, the majority of editors aren't admins and feel the same way. Work on changing the admin culture to be effective.

Observation by ElC

If only Ryan were to give Mikkalai one percent of the virtually infinite patience he exhibited toward Archtransit... this sentence finishes itself. El_C 16:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Dr. Dan

I don't blame Mikka for trying his best to ignore this one. It's almost surreal. Truly, Much ado about Nothing. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

• Recuse. Daniel (talk) 05:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/3/0/0)

• Comment: I am holding off on voting to accept the case for the present, in the hope that Mikkalai will make a statement indicating that he will change his policy or modify his behavior, and thus make a case less necessary. As attested in some of the statements above, Mikka works hard in some areas where we need more, rather than less, administrator attention, and has done so for a long time, and is entitled to respect for that and to some understanding at times when things grow stressful. Thus, I very much hope that the issues can be worked out soon, short of the further stresses of an arbitration case. But if something doesn't change, then we are going to have to accept either this case or a future one before too much longer, because we really can't have an administrator whose rule is that as a matter of principle he won't communicate with anyone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly change to accept. The bizarre response to the request for arbitration [15] gives no indication that Mikkalai is willing to consider modifying his behavior at this time, and while the suggestion of an RfC would ordinarily be well-taken, I fear that this approach would have limited usefulness in the case of an admin who refuses to consider user input. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also the thread on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. I'm thinking this would be a good opportunity to clarify our expectations regarding the communication responsibilities of admins. Is it OK to clam up? Is it OK to not make email contact available? (Though that's not an issue in this particular case.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Kirill 03:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. The situation with User:Mikkalai may well not be satisfactory. But rushing this into a Arbitration case isn't ideal either. Various explanations, ranging from burn-out to life events one wouldn't discuss on one's User page, suggest themselves as at least possible. I would need much more in the way of failings of the trust placed in an admin to move this from a noticeboard to RFAR. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. I note Jehochmann's comments as being highly significant. Mikka needs support, not an arbitration case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept -- unless somewthing significant and promising changes, such as someone proposes and opens an RFC, or some other viable solution, that is in active discussion in the next 48 hours (in which case hold this as a request until it's clear whether the RFC or discussion is failing, or showing signs of promise.) Otherwise, well-founded admin concerns are often an Arbcom matter. If tool abuse occurs though, speedy accept. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

There are multiple issues here. Unusually, rather than start with the policy and project, I would like to start with the human side. Arbitration is so often thought of as a way to handle misconduct, that its other side is sometimes forgotten: Arbitration also allows for handling of exceptional and sensitive situations where the community as a whole might not find its way to do so. The consensus of the statements seems to concur from all sides. Mikkalai is a valued, respected administrator of long standing. he has made contributions in articles, and in adminship. But for whatever reasons, he is no longer acting as administrators for 2008 need to act, and many users are concerned enough to feel worry, that he may not be okay with the admin tools right now. Adminship Adminship requires communal confidence, good quality work, communication, and high standards. There is serious concern that Mikkalai is not (for whatever reason) acting this way at present, and shows no sign of change. Regardless of how much someone is liked, administrators are people who users must feel confident with as a community, and repeated poor judgement, policy breach, bad communication, or non-communication have led to unfortunate desysoppings in the past. Never wished for, but sadly sometimes happened. Lack of knowledge We do not know what is up. Perhaps Mikkalai will explain; equally he may never want to explain. Again, there must be dialog, otherwise it is a problem. Conditional (but likely) acceptance of case This is a sad case. Users have proposed compassionate solutions. Perhaps some other approach might go somewhere. But if Mikkalai stays, his conduct as an administrator must be to an appropriate level and the statements clearly show that it is not, and that this is said with sadness. Right now, we have an administrator with concerns over conduct, and no clear acceptable resolution. My view is, I will ask the case not be opened for 48 hours (at least), to give users the chance to consider if any other approach might help. If some approach is started then hold this as a request until we see what happens. if no request is started, or a request is started but does not seem to show promise of resolving the matter within a reasonable time, then accept. Something like R.Baley's approach would be one possibility.

• Decline per Charles. Paul August ☎ 01:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept while waiting for evidence concerning the abuse of power allegations if there are any. If there are concerns about a user or administrator conduct which the community could not resolve due to their possible complexity then this is the right place to hear and verify them. I could have simply rejected this case if Mikkalai would have told us to 'just leave [me] in peace and it's gonna be fine in a couple of days or even weeks' but this has been something quite impossible to hear from Mikkalai until this moment. There are three main issues addressed in the different statements of this case; communication which I consider a core part of the existence of this encyclopaedic project or any other project on earth, usage of admin tools which I have no opinion about yet until I see and verify evidence of it if there exist any and civility which need to be looked at. I therefore see no reason to disregard them or to treat them as unworthy before verification. I also agree with jpgordon above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([16])
• FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) ([17])
• KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) ([18])

Statement by MastCell

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

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

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

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

Statement by Ferrylodge

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

The administrator who handled this matter at Arbitration Enforcement said: "Even had the ArbComm clarified that it was clearly intended to cover talk pages; I was probably not going to act. Using an article's talkpage to discuss article content is not inherently disruptive; that is the intended purpose of the talk page."[19]

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

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

Since Mastcell indicates[20] that he does not want to identify the specific diff that he thinks is most egregious (as I requested above), I doubt it would be helpful for me to say anything further at this time.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Proposed motions and voting

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking_3

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

Statement by Avruch

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

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

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

Additional, responding to Arbitrators comments so far

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

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

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

Follow up

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

Statement by Uninvolved User Jay*Jay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by WJBscribe

I emailed the following analysis to ArbCom yesterday:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by David Mestel

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

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

Comment from AGK

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

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

Respectively, these issues can be addressed very simply:

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

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' views and discussion

• Comment: There has been detailed discussion from time to time as to how we should decide which alternative proposal passes when multiple proposals on the same topic receive the required majority. In past instances, there have been a couple of times when it was not at all clear which of two alternatives has been adopted, which have been generally been resolved when one or two arbitrators struck their support from their second choices so that the outcome was clarified. Even now, it's not clear to me whether in a case with a required majority of 7, if proposal 1.1 has 8 supports and no opposes, and alternative proposal 1.2 has 9 supports and no opposes but three of the supports are labelled "second choice," which one is enacted. And if one allows for oppose votes also, then it gets even more complicated. A month or so ago, one of our most senior Clerks wrote a note in userspace about how we might address these situations (see, User:David.Mestel/ArbComvoting), which would eliminate these ambiguities, but at the time I judged the proposal to be a bit too complicated to recommend adoption. (paragraph) With respect to these particular motions, a further complication is that the arbitrators felt compelled either to vote for my "motion 1," as a whole, or Jpgordon's alternative motion 2, also as a whole. There were differences not only in the specific sanctions that I thought could be lifted but that Jpg thought should be kept in force, but also in other nuances of the wording (my motion was a narrative with admonitions and observations; Jpg's was just a list, and some arbs might not have cared for my verbosity or my dicta). It's a commonplace in the legal and political science literature that the order of voting and whether issues are voted on jointly and singly can sometimes decide the result of the voting. This has happened in several significant U.S. Supreme Court cases (I've actually been researching a real-world article on the subject; boring details on request; compare also Arrow's theorem). The fairest thing to do here, if the committee determines that there is a problem here that ought to receive further attention in the interests of fairness or the appearance of fairness, would be to vote on the termination or continuation of each of the sanctions as to which the two motions are in disagreement, individually. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The statement 'support as second preference' means that I supported motion 2, but expressed a preference for motion 1 to be adopted if the two emerged with equal approval. In this case they did not have equal approval; motion 1 attracted opposition which was not present for motion 2. In that case the support for motion 2 still stands. The support for either motion was because both took the Everyking case forward by lifting some restrictions, but maintaining some in force; the reason for indicating a preference for motion 1 was because it did not expressly continue a provision which was common sense, would not normally need to be stated, and was difficult to enforce. However a preference for support is not a conditional oppose. Had I intended that meaning, I would have written it explicitly. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Though the motion was closed a little faster than I might have preferred (specifically because of this fuss), the result is consistent with ArbCom's methods in the past. When alternate proposals are put forward, and both pass, the one with the most support wins. In this case, it's even simpler. Open motions, in general, are considered passed as soon as they are supported by a majority of arbitrators. Motion 2 thus could have been considered passed and immediately enacted by the clerks after this vote by Charles Matthews, which made the vote for the first motion 6-2-1 and the vote for the second motion 8-0. The clerks wisely waited, since six and five arbitrators, respectively, had not made their opinions known. In the ensuing three days, the second motion gained four more votes; the first gained two. The consensus of the committee was quite clear and unambiguous at that point; of the two alternate motions, the one with the most support carried. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  In answer to Avruch: my own interpretation of the meaning of people voting to support both motions is "Either one is exactly fine with me; I'll go along with the consensus of the Committee". This is based on the assumption that all were aware the two were alternates. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it was pretty clear the two motions were alternates, especially given your comment in opposing my motion that you were offering your own, and the number of references either to "second choice" or "either is fine" or whatever. The fundamental problem may still be, as I observed above, that people were given the choice of voting for your proposal or mine or both or neither, rather than parsing the specifics of each one. Of course any arbitrator could have asked for a division of the question and no one did, but even so. How can division of the question be a redlink? Where are our parliamentary law and procedure articles? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  We have it at division (vote) :) --bainer (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  No, no, "division (vote)" or "division of the assembly" refers to the voting process itself, in a legislature or parliamentary body. A request or motion for a "division of the question" (or "to divide the question") is a request that separate, divisible aspects or parts of a main motion be voted on separately. This is definitely going on my wiki-to-do list. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the confusion here is that, as David Mestel observes, these alternative wordings were labelled "1" and "2" and not "1" and "1.1", as is commonly the practice. Clearly none of us intended that these should be anything other than alternatives. I vote that Josh goes home and practices his numbers some more :) --bainer (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To exonerate Josh, I will plead guilty to being the person who introduced the complex numeration scheme "1", "2" into this discussion. Per my comment above, everyone understood these motions were alternatives and I don't believe this contributed in any significant way to the situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Well, wait a sec. Have any arbitrators expressed any concern that the result is incorrect or did not reflect our consensus? I mean, we're right here, we're paying attention to this page, it's been brought up on the mailing list, it was brought up on AN/I, and I haven't heard so much as a suggestion from anyone in ArbCom that this was not the appropriate outcome. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there were two motions, each being considered in toto, the conclusion that motion 2 superseded motion 1 is certainly defensible. However, I can't be sure whether a majority of the continuing restrictions that your motion and mine disagreed on, might have been terminated if the points had been voted on item-by-item. If Everyking were able to come back in a reasonable time and raise the individual items again (and we would re-vote now knowing that it should be done differently), that would be okay. But the last point of your motion also locks him out of making another appeal for another full year, and given the ambiguity of the result on the current appeal, that does bother me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that bothers me too. Paul August ☎ 05:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lesson here on "block voting" alternatives which are similar but not identical. I'm happy to do it again more "item by item", simply because although I think it was closed according to intent, it's in a way, better to revote it than to have uncertainty. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request for clarification: Digwuren

Statement by Moreschi

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

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

Statement by User:Martintg

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

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

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

Statement by User:Biophys

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

Statement by User:Vecrumba

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

I would suggest a code of etiquette. I have debated (civilly) paid propaganda pushers by sticking to sources, so I know it is possible not to escalate into conflict. What has worked is...

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

Statement by User:Relata refero

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

I'd like to add that I assume that the area of "conflict" is all those articles that have as their subjects the history and current status of the relations between Russia and the former states of the USSR/Warsaw Pact. Relata refero (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd mention regarding Denial of the Holodomor that several editors including myself were reprimanded when Gatoclass made some assertions which led to a degenerating spiral we could not escape from. All participants were "put on the list" by Thatcher. I disagreed with Thatcher's conclusion regarding my personal editorial conduct, however, I still prefer that to the alternative.

  You're only coming to the discussion there on what I think is its third round. I completely agree that the general "divide" is along versions of history which echo Sovietism and versions by the countries formerly subjugated under Sovietism. I say "versions" because basic facts are often in dispute, they are not "views" or "POVs" regarding a common set of facts or circumstances. —PētersV (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

See what I mean?

Yes, the article's one of the worst imaginable, and I acted on WP:BRD. About "exceedingly patient and civil"... wow. What a mess EE articles must be if someone thinks that was "exceedingly patient and civil". Strengthens the case for stringent restrictions, I'd say? Relata refero (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can continue on the article page. It's only the "worst imaginable" partly because (I believe) you believe it is something in scope which it is not, so perhaps we can keep disparaging Q.E.D. remarks to article talk where editors would expect to find them to comment on them. :-) Was there bolding I missed? PētersV (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(cross posted with additions) Mass deletion of EE content is most typically (historically) associated with "I don't like it" edit wars, so I would ask editors to be sensitive to that and discuss prior to deletion, not delete as an act of improvement and then (appear to deign to) discuss. Because of past experiences, that sort of editorial conduct is looked upon as not acting in good faith. Generally speaking, EE article etiquette is to discuss major changes, additions, and deletions prior; to never impose what is written elsewhere in Wikipedia as a "model" or "standard" but to stick to sources, etc. —PētersV (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even unreliable ones...

We shouldn't make excuses for departures from core Wikipedia policies, but look for ways to enforce them. Relata refero (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

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

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

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

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

Proposed motions and voting

Motion:

The general restriction in the Digwuren case is replaced with the following:

1) Discretionary sanctions

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

2) Appeal of discretionary sanctions

Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

3) Other provisions

This shall not affect any sanctions already imposed under the old remedies. All sanctions imposed under these provisions are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. I remain convinced that this is the best solution, at least until the working group develops something more useful. Kirill 13:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. This is more helpful to those who find themselves involved in editing disputes over Eastern Europe, whether as participant or administrator. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Support so as to conform the rules for discretionary sanctions in this area to the ones we have developed in more recent cases, and without prejudice to any steps we might take later based on recommendations of the working group. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Marting reminds me on my talk that some of his points from above have not been addressed. Would urge that the motion be clarified to address them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain: