Dispute resolution (Requests)
Tips
Assume good faith Use etiquette Be civil Be open to compromise Discuss on talk pages Failure to discuss Help desk (Request)
Content disputes
Third opinion (Request) Mediation Noticeboards Request comments (Request) Resolution noticeboard (Request)
Conduct disputes
Administrator assistance (Request) Arbitration (Request)

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

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

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

Rollback consensus

Initiated by Doc^g at 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears Jimbo has referred this to ArbCom as well. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Everyone here

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• ANI
• Wikipedia talk:Non-administrator rollback
• Requests for rollback

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• extended discussion in AN
• AN again
• Discussion on Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback (various threads)
• Discussion on Wikipedia talk:Non-administrator rollback (various threads)

Statement by Doc

Non admin rollback is a perenial debate, for which there is a long-standing failure to gain an community consensus. A poll Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges/Poll was held over many months from January 2006, and having closed at 216 support to 108 oppose (exactly 2:1) was deemed to be without consensus. Another poll Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback/Poll was opened by proponents of the idea on December 30th 2007. This poll (advertised on AN and ANI and Central discussions) was marked as due to close on January 6th. I discover it on January 4th - and with 48 hours to run - it had only attracted 60 votes, and was deemed to be "succeeding" with c. 49/11. Concerned over the propriety of a short snap poll over the holidays, I tried to persuade the initiators to extend it for a few weeks, when they refused, I took a lot of flack for "spamming" the official mailing list with my concerns. After that it was added to the site notices. The poll, however, was closed on 7/8th January (8 days) with 304 support and 151 oppose (exactly the same % as 2006 - nothing had moved).

Following the second poll, the feature was implemented by a developer on 9 January 2008 as noted at Template:Bug. - Since then, a new process Wikipedia:Requests for rollback has been initiated - and rollback widely granted. I understood that developers were only to turn on functions for wikimedia communities where there was a settled local consensus. As can be seen from the bug report, Ryan Postlethwaite presented 67% as representing an en.wp "consensus" and a dev accepted this (perhaps there were other conversations). Although consensus is more than numbers, this was the same non-consenus ration as have been stable for two years, and we don't even promote admins on 66% never mind begin a whole new policy and process - so how it can be presented and accepted as local consensus is beyond me. Every precedent has required more support that this. And the result is heated debate and a general feeling of community consensus having been manipulated by people determined to get their way.

Rollback is in itself no big deal. However, giving the power to 1400 admins to giveth and taketh away, gives alarming potential for disputes drama and the growth of process, rules and instruction creep. we have seen enough of all of these in 25 hours. Thus this impacts hugely on the project and is a potential sink hole for admin time. So we must not do this lightly on six day polls and a developer's bad judgement.

As this has been done outside of the community's process, there is no remedy other than arbcom or the WMF board. Arbcom does not make policy. The community does that. But the community cannot agree, at this point, whether there is a consensus for this new policy or not. Arbcom's role is to be a mediator where the community cannot agree. Arbcom should NOT decide whether rollback is bad or good. But I am asking them, however, to arbitrate the community dispute as to whether there exists a settled consensus.

Jimbo has already indicated that arbcom do have a roll here: [1] "ArbCom will discuss and vote on the result, and make a formal request to the Wikimedia Foundation about whether it should be turned on or not, and to establish the policy.... ArbCom will of course most likely follow the vote of the community, but I will not require them to do so. They should serve as a "check and balance" in the event something strange happens here, or in case the discussion shows a way forward that the vote itself does not accurately represent.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

I asking Arbcom to do something less than Jimbo has done. I am asking them merely to arbitrate the dispute as to whether consensus exists.

--Doc^g 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addition

Jimbo has said "I recommend that people basically do nothing at all here, i.e. please don't go awarding this ability to lots of people in an effort to create "facts on the ground" about how it is used." Unfortunately, that's too late. Within minutes (or hours if my time zones are wrong - but I don't think so) of a dev responding to Ryan Postlethwaith's plea that there was community consensus (2008-01-09 22:53:17 UTC), the other initiator Majorly, moved, a ready-made process out of Ryan's userspace into action 2008-01-09 23:05 and declared it "switched on" - a site bar header invited applicants to the page shortly after.--Doc^g 02:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carcharoth

From what I saw of what happened here, this was largely a poorly-timed (over Christmas) and poorly-planned (no exit strategy) poll. My feeling is that the breakdown in communication occurred when Ryan posted in the bugzilla thread that he personally saw consensus and asked the developers to have a look and judge for themselves ("The poll has now closed with 304 supports and around 150 opposes. I'd say that's consensus, but please take a look."). It seems that the developer then switched the feature on for en-wiki (I believe the feature was already implemented globally with a default 'off' setting and was actually ready to go, unlike last time). However, a little bit of digging and reading around the talk pages would have shown that things were not yet clear. But judging a borderline or otherwise uncertain consensus should not be the role of developers. What should have happened instead was for uninvolved en-wiki bureaucrats to be asked to judge the consensus, and for the result of that judgment to be posted at the bugzilla thread. Ideally, the bureaucrats would have been asked to 'clerk' the poll beforehand, so they could remain uninvolved if needed. I will add that the en-wiki community (writing the English-language encyclopedia) and the community of developers (writing the software) and sysadmins (integrating the software changes) need to make clearer to each other how they communicate on issues like this. Carcharoth (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to Gurch (and Nick and Acalamari and anyone else worrying that this is about shutting the process down): The title of the request specifically mentions consensus. I agree with you that for better or for worse we have non-admin rollback, and that it is bedding in quite well, and there is no need to talk about disabling or suspending it. The point here is to find out what should have happened in order to settle the consensus issue, and learn lessons for next time a change like this is proposed (eg. how to improve communications). Carcharoth (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to Sean William: Thanks for pointing out Ned Scott's draft RfArb. The latest version before he blanked it is here. I agree with what Ned has said concerning issues of user behaviour, and would encourage him to post the statement he was drafting. Carcharoth (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: Other examples of technical processes being implemented, with and without drama. The "Table" namespace. The New Pages patrolled feature. Anonymous page creation disabled (and the nearly-implemented proposal to switch it back on).

Statement by Ultraexactzz

I agree that the questions raised by Doc are significant, and worthy of the Committee's consideration. Where is consensus? Is it a certain percentage? Or, to borrow a metaphor, is it whoever shouts the loudest? I know that every technical change is not approved, or even discussed, by the community - but when are the developers bound to seek (and follow) consensus, and how are their decisions reviewed if they go against consensus? I would argue that, in this case, the Arbcom is the appropriate venue.

I also note for the record that the admins who put together and operate the process at Requests for Rollback have made what appears to be a good faith effort to implement a process for which there was some disagreement. The approval of any number of editors (myself included) to receive rollback tools isn't, in my view, an attempt to short-circuit consensus, but rather an attempt to fairly and reasonably implement a new process. The issues of this case should be limited to the events surrounding the activation of the developer's change, including the process for determining consensus beforehand, and whether such consensus existed (or exists).

-- UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gurch

Just when I thought discussion was dying down, Jimbo decided to intervene and now this came up. There is very definitely a community consensus to grant rollback in some form or other, all that is being debated is the workings of the process. The current process is not perfect, of course, but no process is. I think the amount that was achieved in 24 hours was remarkable, especically given that it was achieved despite the bickering of many contributors who did not like the way in which it was implemented. Sure, it could have been introduced a lot more smoothly. But we've got this far... can we please not screw up now? Requests for rollback have already died down after an initial surge. There are already long-establised rules governing the use of rollback that can simply be carried over from administrators; the only thing to settle is the process itself. We as a community can tweak and get consensus for the working of the process in good time on our own, we do not need a committee to babysit us. If the Arbitration Committee decided now to disbale use of the rollback tool, that would in all probablilty be the last time any non-administrator ever saw it. For the good of the project, this really, really isn't a good idea – Gurch 01:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Marlith

The implementation of rollback hit us without anyone knowing about it. I also agree with Gurch on thsi topic. Just as we finished the initial voting we went forth to a short period of discussion about the definition of consensus. Hours later, we discover that it was implemented quite quietly. The problem that caused so much controversy is the vague definition of consensus. Could it be the dictionary definition? Does it mean that one side has more logical and convinicing arguements like this? This controversy has escalated to the point where only the ArbCom can decide. Personally, I believe that RfR should be tweaked into an RfA like process instead of the RFPP like process we have now to prevent users from misusing the tool. Or if we have intelligent discussion the community can come to an agreement. Although rollback allows users to be bitey, I would like to remember that rollback can be taken away from disruptive users and it is also a very good anti vandalisim tool. Also I have seen much bad faith in the arguments against rollback, the problems lie with the users, not with the proposals or everyone who has rollback. Thank you. Marlith ^T/C 01:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A modest proposal by Durova

This just isn't worth the fuss. I respectfully request that the developer who implemented this un-implement it temporarily while the community decides whether/what type of implementation is appropriate, that ArbCom dismiss this case, and that people put their energies into something useful. Durova^Charge! 02:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Halo

I agree with Carcharoth - it was largely a breakdown of communication between the en-Wiki process and the developers. I, for one, firmly believe there wasn't consensus for this change.

In future, there needs to be a better way to decide whether a policy has passed or not, avoiding replying on developer discretion wherever possible simply to make life easier for everyone - the suggestion by Jimbo Wales on Wikipedia:AN#Arbcom to let the ArbCom have the final decision on these sorts of polls and communicate this to developers seems like the best idea going forward. A way of preventing ambiguity over poll results and consensus should be the most important thing to come out of this process - if nothing else than to prevent discouraging developers from making active changes to Wikipedia lest they be controversial, and to prevent future controversial decisions.

However, I can't help but think Ryan Postlethwaite, the original author of WP:RFR, did his very best to muddy the waters and tried to cause as much confusion as possible to push through the policy by implying that there was consensus on Bugzilla bug 12534 while not showing his conflict of interest (or that his opinions on consensus differ from many) and advertising on MediaWiki:watchlist-details prematurely.

Rolling out WP:RFR at the first possible time irrespective of the fact that the policy wasn't ready causing confusion with policy made up on the spot was a bad idea. I believe that these sorts of actions should be strongly discouraged in future, and changes such as this should be done in a more considered manner - even if something is technically possible and enabled that doesn't mean it should be rushed into. -Halo (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick

I welcome and strongly support the comments made by Gurch. I would also ask that the Arbitration Committee clarify their powers in relation to technical features. Whilst not strictly relevant, I note that some Arbitrators have been appointed following the recent elections with a level of support comparable to the level of support for the Rollback proposal (both in terms of votes and in terms of percentages). Arbitrators with such a level of support enjoy a clear mandate, and I believe this should also be the case with the Rollback proposal, as such, I cannot do anything but ask the Arbitration Committee to reject the full case, permit users to be given the Rollback permission and direct the community to create suitable policy to govern the process as it has been implemented. Nick (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MBK004

I received rollback through the process on 10 January. I echo the concerns of Gurch, and urge that a consensus be determined between the administrators granting rollback as suggested by Nick. Regardless, of what is decided, my main concern is what is to happen to the editors who have received rollback if the process is halted. I agree that the process is flawed, and have no doubts that many disagree with how the process was implemented in the first place. I commend the admins who have tried to work in good faith to implement a process to effectively judge if an editor should be given this tool. If the decision is made to stop this process of granting rollback to non-administrators, I would advocate that the editors who already have it (approximately 350+), be allowed to keep the tool, with the knowledge that their actions would be closely monitored, in order to judge if the concerns of the community in the aforementioned polls to determine community consensus have merit or not. This is because the unannounced (to those who have not kept up with the recent events following this process) removal of the tool to the 350+ users with it screams of assuming bad faith in the editors who have rollback. - -MBK₀₀₄ 02:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alexfusco5

I was an original opposer of this proposal before it was implemented. Now that I have seen how he process is operating my concerns have been addressed. Many of the oppose votes (my included) opposed because of unneeded bureaucracy or dislike of the process. I believe that a new policy needs to be made behind the new feature to assure that the policy has consensus. As was seen by the poll many people supported the idea but opposed the way it worked (i.e. should be carried out bureaucrats, twinkle does the same thing etc.). The solution would probably be to draft a new rollback policy that has consensus from the community (unless the policy was supposed to be implemented by majority) Alexfusco⁵ 02:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by M-ercury

Everything Gurch said above.

Statement by Sean William

This situation was handled poorly on every level. Once the developers activated the feature, the process immediately began - causing utter chaos. I tried to protect the page so that some discussion could be had, but it was only protected for about 40 minutes when John Reaves unprotected it as "not needed". I feel that it absolutely was needed, and still is. The parties list could be narrowed down easily to a few key players; Ned Scott already tried to do it in a sandbox of his (User:Ned Scott/sandbox4, old revision). Sean William @ 02:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Acalamari

I also agree with what Gurch said. As one of the most frequent participants at requests for rollback, I can say that everything has been going fine there, and problems, if/when they have arisen at the place, have been discussed and sorted out. I don't see any reason to close the process down, and I don't see what an arbitration case will achieve apart from waste a load of time for many people. Acalamari 02:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cobi

I have to echo Gurch, Nick, and MBK004 as well. Furthermore, ClueBot has seen a major performance boost since it was granted rollback. Regardless of the outcome of this request for arbitration, my main concern is those who have received rollback. Especially the anti-vandal bots, because all rollback is for the bots is a more efficient way to do the exact same thing that they do already. I have not seen any misuse of rollback since it has been granted, and to remove it would go clearly against our fundamental principle about assuming good faith. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 02:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ashley Y

From this case I hope to see an improvement of the process by which technical changes are made to the site. I note, for instance, that WP:PWD "passed" by 51 to 22, smaller numbers and proportionally less discussion no doubt due to not being linked on watchlists, yet was not implemented.

People get upset not because things don't happen to go their way, but when they feel the generally agreed rules and customs of the site are not being applied fairly. Upsetting people tends to damage the encyclopedia, but a clear process can mitigate that. —Ashley Y 02:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Ashley Y

Regarding WP:PWD, it was not implemented due to lack of discussion. The rollback proposal, on the other hand has had tons of it. Majorly (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lawrence Cohen

Oh, enough already: Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Vote. Lawrence Cohen 03:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

I’m not sure really what to say about this, we had what many could consider an RfC on the subject, a proposal and then a vote on the proposal which two thirds of the community said they wanted. What was my role in this? Well, I created the proposal which was discussed, then I created a final proposal which was put to a community vote. After around 450 people had voted on this, someone closed the poll citing discussion (I had nothing to do with the closure of the poll, I unwatchlisted it soon after it was created and I think it was closed by someone who opposed the proposal). A couple of days later, Corvus cornix cited a bug request that had been put forward by an uninvolved party (Note: This was visible to all parties on the talk page of the poll) and I simply responded on the bug, citing that I personally thought there was consensus but asked the developers to take a look at the poll). I had previously created Wikipedia:Requests for rollback and userfied it just in case it was implemented. I was as shocked as anyone when I saw it had been moved out of my userspace and the first request was already up. I think it would have been better for us to have had a few days (at least) warning before implementation so we could have got our policy and procedures up to scratch to stop any resulting mess happening, but this didn’t happen. I hindsight, I think everyones done a fantastic job developing this into a non bureaucratic procedure as we’ve worked in real time to sort out some real problems we had when it first started last night. As with all procedures here, they need time to develop, and I really can’t see how there’ve been any major problems with it so far. This was in no way ideal, we should have had warning, but we’ve made the best of a bad situation, and what the majority of the community wanted. Over the next few weeks I expect us to develop further and unless there’s problems (which no-one has yet been able to cite), I can’t see any real need to change things. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr.Z-man

I too agree with what Gurch says. At this point, most of the drama seems to just be for the sake of drama. Instead of continuing to argue about whether there was a consensus that the poll had a consensus, we should evaluate what has already been done. Is rollback being misused by non-admins on a significant scale (or at all)? Is the lack of a fully agreed upon system actually causing problems (other than people complaining about the lack of a process)? I've been mostly avoiding the discussion on the admins' noticeboard, but have instead been focusing on the discussion and process at WP:RFR and WT:RFR. For all the shouting and panicking elsewhere about how not having a pre-existing policy would be and is a disaster, it seems to be running fairly smoothly. There have been bumps, but for a totally new system, that is to be expected and work at the RFR talk page based on the experiences of people taking part in and observing the actual process is producing helpful results and minimal drama. Would having a fully agreed upon process before this was implemented have helped? Probably. Is it necessary? No. For one, except for important content policies, rules are supposed to be descriptive. How do we describe something that doesn't exist? Was is a total disaster? No, even without rules, people used (*gasp*) common sense and started to form rules based on how things were working. Even if we created rules before it started, unless we got really lucky, we probably would have ended up rewriting most of them once the process started. I'm reminded of when patrolled edits for Special:Newpages was activated (not quite as significant a change, but still quite noticeable). There was minimal on-wiki discussion beforehand, no RFC, no proposal, no straw poll, just a short discussion on the Village Pump. When it was turned on, I drafted up a quick set of rules based on my thoughts and some previous discussion (both public and off-wiki), people agreed with most, asked questions and commented on the talk page, and after a few bumps at the start (some due to it being misconfigured) it proceeded with minimal drama. Even without rules written beforehand and pages of discussion, it went quite well. I imagine that given a few days to iron out some issues, this will go well also. Mr.Z-man 03:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Justin

I want to emphasize a major point here. There are mixed opinions about whether or not WP:RFR is working, and those above me have commented on the various good and bad points. That being said, the real question here is not whether the tool is effective, or if the feature is a good or bad, but whether or not the implementation was made with consensus. I strongly disagree with User:Cobi that removing this tool is a violation of WP:AGF, if it's found that enabling the feature was without consensus in the first place. At this juncture, I believe full protecting WP:RFR and allowing a true consensus to form is the appropriate course of action. I see no reason to remove access to the tool, for those already granted access, unless the community decides to remove it entirely from non-admins (which I sincerely doubt will happen). As an aside, while I did vote in Lawrence Cohen's poll above, I don't think a "straight poll" is going to be any less contentious than the present situation. Justin ^chat 03:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:TenOfAllTrades

Statement to follow TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

• Decline, and (whether the current view is consensus or not) refer back to community to choose some approach to (re)generate a consensus-based decision. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed reasons.

Should Arbcom hear it? Setting aside the view of Jimbo Wales (see below), and the question whether the Committee can hear the matter (it can: 1/ policy; 2/ "unusually contentious between admins" and 3/ interpersonal dispute), there are good general reasons not to. In this case there is a good chance the community will be able to resolve it, itself. Where possible Arbcom should not decide matters over the community's head, but all of us should use the opportunities to better gain understanding of consensus decision-making. There is no "disruptive" conduct here or bad faith activity, just a decision that might need rechecking. This is properly as Jimbo says, a matter for the community to decide, and Arbcom to then ratify and action [2]. Arbcom should set a bar for accepting cases. Arbitration policy stipulates that serious dispute resolution should have usually been tried first. There's reasons for that, one of which is that ultimately it is more beneficial that the community (ie users in general) makes decisions; Arbcom is not an executive body and should only reluctantly accept a role beyond "last resort for editorial/conduct disputes" (and then only minimally). It is easy to take on new powers, roles and tasks for the best of motives, but my judgement is it would also be for the long term detriment of the community if the Committee moved in the direction of being seen as "solver of all problems". It's too easy for people to become used to passing problems to some perceived authority. The ethos of the Wikipedia community is that all users in general solve them co-operatively rather than having some group "do it for us". The community is the authority here. If at all possible, the community should be aided to move beyond its own impasses and thereby become more capable. A strong collaborative community is wanted. To underline that the community is indeed capable, a fair number of other cases passed upwards later end up (once the drama is settled) as being addressed communally anyway, proving the community is more than capable and didn't really need arbcom to step in, much of the time (Attack sites NPA edit, WP:SRNC, etc). My personal view. Given further discussion and serious approaches to consensus-seeking (see WP:SRNC for what a 'serious approach' might mean), the only other contentious matter here is trouts all round for the unnecessarily contentiousness. AGF and disagree that hearing such a case would be worth the time taken away from content writing and other activity. Jimbo Wales posted that there should be a community poll and votes, followed by Arbcom discussion with a view to ratifying the outcome and draft policy. He did not say "go to Arbcom immediately". For the reasons above, I'm in agreement with that broad view. Consensus can change. The software facility isn't going anywhere. if we don't agree now, we can re-discuss in 6 months or a year. When the community wishes it, it'll happen. So "no consensus" is not troublesome. Summary and decline In this case, there is disagreement whether consensus exists. If it does, then a re-test of consensus will affirm it. If not then a retest will be needed to develop consensus. In neither case is the community served by the Committee taking the testing of that view out of the hands of the community at large. Whatever we were to say, there would be loud voices that it was incorrect/improper. This isn't Florida 2000 and Wikipedia works by consensus; my view is if unsure, recheck. Hence decline. If I were to be asked to sum it up, I'd say something like this:- The "non-admin rollback debate" is be better discussed in the hands of the community, even if contentious. Consensus sometimes takes work and is gained by overcoming divisions; this is a part of our agreed approach. I feel it's best to return the matter back to the community, and encourage and recommend RFC or some way to genuinely decide what consensus would look like, and how to test it, to supersede the contentious decision-making to date. The community may wish to make a decision concerning granting of rollback in the interim. Although this matter would be within the Committee's purview if it chose, I would strongly decline to take it on, as it is in every way best dealt with as a communal policy decision. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Waterboarding

Initiated by henrik•talk at 11:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• henrik (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Blue Tie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Neutral Good (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Badagnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• OtterSmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shibumi2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Neon_white (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ka-Ping Yee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Walton_One (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Hypnosadist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Raymond Arritt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• 68.x.x.x (Various Sprint wireless IPs, usually signing comments as Bob)
• 209.221.240.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Remember (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• RfC: Talk:Waterboarding/Definition
• Fringe theories noticeboard: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Waterboarding, Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Waterboarding_.282.29
• AN and AN/I threads: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive119#Waterboarding AN discussion, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Neutral_Good, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Last_time_I.27m_doing_this:_Talk:Waterboarding_.28again.29, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive350#Harvard_class_project_disrupting_Wikipedia_via_meatpuppetry_on_articles, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive346#User:BryanFromPalatine_may_be_back, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive345#Please_edit_protected_Waterboarding_article

• (All of these are from December 26 to today, I did not include earlier discussions)

Statement by Henrik

The battle that has been going on is growing beyond the ability of the community to handle. Several admins, myself included, have attempted to bring order to the discussion only to be dragged into the maelstrom. The basic content dispute the question of whether there is a significant dispute that Waterboarding is/is not torture, and what weight that should be given to the various positions. There has has been an unwillingess for the parties to make compromises and talk to each other, and as a result the page has been protected, almost since the begining of november. Multiple warnings and blocks, an RFC, and an attempt at community article probation have failed. There have been cases of sock puppetry, disruptive argumentation, the atmosphere is generally unproductive, and a group of students at Harvard attempting to participate in a Wikipedia debate got bitten. I would welcome ArbCom input on how to move forward, to get this article back to constructive editing.

A followup: Some have suggested mediation should be tried first. If we are dealing with sock puppets of banned users as some have suggested, I believe mediation is unlikely to be successful. Mediation is a voluntary process and requires the good faith of everybody involved. Some posts on the page seem designed to drive other editors apart and provoke confrontation and endless argument, almost in the style of HeadleyDown. This, combined with sockpuppetry, wireless Sprint addresses, strange connections between some of the users (and Free Republic somehow lurking in the shadows). Had I believed we simply had a breakdown in communications, mediation what I would have suggested. henrik•talk 17:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Neutral Good

I am one of the so-called "SPAs" on this account. I openly admit that I have a single purpose: it's called NPOV. The Waterboarding article represents one of the great moral dilemmas of the early 21st Century and it's "In The News," so it is attracting a lot of attention from observers at all points of the political spectrum. The first six words of the article pretend that "waterboarding is torture" is not disputed by anyone, despite the fact that such prominent legal experts as Rudolph Giuliani (former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, possibly the next president of the United States) and Andrew C. McCarthy (former assistant US attorney for SDNY, now director of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism) have said that in some cases, waterboarding may not be torture. The "waterboarding is torture" advocates have gone so far as to extend this pretension to a section header for the section of the article that focuses on the very real dispute, expunging the word "dispute" from that section header. Administrative process has been persistently abused by one side in an attempt to WP:OWN the article; for every sockpuppet accusation that was accurate, there have been at least three resulting in findings of  Unrelated or  Declined, my User Talk page has been blanketed by warnings, and there have been no less than three separate threads started at WP:ANI by the same person. They have violated WP:TE and WP:DE during brief periods of semi-protection, they have an SPA of their own created at the end of October that mysteriously agrees with everything they say, and there have been absolutely zero consequences for them. Someone needs to take action to make the first six words of the article NPOV.

Statement by Black Kite

I came to this article as uninvolved; whilst there are undoubtedly good-faith editors involved in the "not torture" side of the dispute, the majority of the problems are almost certainly caused by an organised campaign of POV-pushing by numerous accounts and IPs (see Talk:Waterboarding#Protection).

Results of my initial investigations are as follows.

Shibumi2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Recently confirmed as a sockmaster warring on this article by CU (Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/GooseCreek) and blocked for 2 weeks.
• Account was created on 7 January 2007, one day after User:BryanFromPalatine was blocked for two weeks (and later indefinitely). Note that BryanFromPalatine, as the name suggests, hailed from Palatine, Illinois.
• Both Shibumi2 and BryanFromPalatine share an major interest in the article Free Republic.

209.221.240.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Previously confirmed by CU as sock of User:BryanFromPalatine, it is the gateway IP from his workplace. Never blocked, however, as there are unrelated edits from this IP, presumably from unrelated employees of the company.

Neutral Good (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• SPA account created 22/12/2007, This diff [18] after he forgot to log in, reveals an IP address which resolves to Illinois as well.
• Nominated Shibumi2 for adminship (Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Shibumi2, deleted and thus only viewable by admins).
• There is no overlap whatsoever between the editing times of Neutral Good and his known IPs, and Shibumi2 and related Sprint IPs.

Other IPs which supported the "not torture" side of the dispute
68.29.174.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Supported "not torture" proposal on talk page. Resolves to Sprint, as does Shibumi2.

70.9.150.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Supported "not torture" proposal on talk page. Resolves to Sprint.

68.31.220.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) "Bob"

• accused other editors of being POV warriors. Only other edit was related to Free Republic. Resolves to Sprint.

Statement by semi-uninvolved Nescio

Although not named I have been part of the discussion presented above, but have not edited the article AFAIK, and would like to share my thoughts on this. Coming to ArbCom seems premature at this point, as formal mediation would be the logical next step. However, should the case be accepted I think a summary of what has happened is helpful. So, here we go.

There is certainly something amiss on this article, where editors want to state waterboarding is a form of torture. (Clearly, some guidance as to how to interpret and apply WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CON seems to be in order) Opposing that sentence, claiming a widespread dispute, there have been numerous incidents involving sockpuppetry, SPA's, sudden influx of outside contributors, that apparently discussed the matter and reached a position prior to getting involved. (These incidents would be one of the mysteriously coincidental parts of the debate that needs attention clarfying possible sinister motives.) During the debate I noticed that some editors have missed the numerous rebuttals of the there is a dispute-fallacy. Unfortunately they are also unable to find them on the talk-page and the RFC. Still trying to abide by WP:AGF I repost a summary of that discussion here.

1. A 140+ legal experts say it is torture, 4 experts say it is not, 8 are unable/unwilling to make any determination. AFAIK nobody disagrees with this, see RFC for details.
2. The following logic has been advanced as argument for the existence of a "controversy:" confronted with a dissenting expert voice, even if it is just only one lone wolf, we effectively have a dispute. This, of course, is nonsens. If the existence of any opposition could negate consensus among experts they would still be debating the way our earth is shaped, what causes AIDS, is evolution real, did the Holocaust happen, are aliens experimenting on us, et cetera. Clearly that is not the case. Therefore, opposition by a very small group of experts does not a dispute make.
3. Within the US 1/3 think it nis not torture and 2/3 think it is. AFAIK nobody disputes this, see RFC for details.
4. The following logic has been advanced as argument for the existence of a "controversy:" since US public opinion is split 2:1 this evidently constitutes a dispute. Although very interesting and certainly notable public opinion is irrelevant to what experts think on this. Public opinion has brought us such notable and successful concepts as antisemitism, facism, McCarthyism, superstition, quackery, witchhunt, mucoid plaque, holocaust denial, scam, et cetera. Confronted with the evident unreliability the world developed a new concept in an attempt to better explain the world in a more unbiased and unlikely to be manipulated manner. Soon it was discovered this new way of explaining things was far superior than the frequently incorrect gut feeling that was used before. With that knowledge relying on public opinion became a logical fallacy. So, using public opinion as argument is not a valid rebuttal but people keep refusing to answer why public opinion, in determining the legalities involved, is more important than expert opinion.
5. Some argue that determining whether waterboarding meets the legal definition of torture, i.e. UNCAT, is a socio-political question.Clearly somebody does not understand that whenever we have to establish whether an individual violated the law, i.e. tax fraud, rape, murder, torture, et cetera, we do not go out in the street and ask the general public. What I think editors attempt to say is that the possibility of allowing torture under certain circumstances is a socio-political debate. Thinking on it, it is self-evident that a legal determination the US engaged in war crimes, factually correct or not, has political consequences. Hence the lack of international zeal to take up cases invoking universal jurisdiction. Possibly this is what is meant with the socio-political part of the argument.added afterthought Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Then people argue that the sources themselves are wrong, i.e. conflating definitions. Surely everybody is aware that it is not up to us to evaluate and correct sources. Please remember, it is not whether information is correct but can we verify it?
7. Others claim that even if waterboarding is torture the technique used by the CIA is entirely different.Unless we can substantiate this with outside sources it is inadmissable as speculation by a WP-editor.

Hope this clarifies the reasons why any opposition to it is torture is insufficiently substantiated with WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:V and common sense in mind. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved HiDrNick

I think that this case is premature, and hope that the committee will choose to not hear it at this time. There are some community-based remedies being discussed that, if adopted, would certainly reduce the amount of tendentious editing on the page. Failing that, mediation as a next step would be reasonable.

Statement by Walton One

This is a content dispute, so I expect the ArbCom will turn it down.

I am also not sure why I have been named as a party. I have been involved in a couple of discussions on the talk page in the last two days, but I have not edit-warred. Indeed I have made a grand total of one edit to the article itself - namely this one, which consisted of adding a closing square bracket. Hardly wildly controversial.

I happen to have a viewpoint on the content issue in question which largely coincides with that of Neutral Good, but I have no idea whether he's behaved inappropriately, and I have no further comment to make on this matter. Walton^One 13:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to my statement. Having discussed the matter with Henrik, I understand that there are no allegations against me.

I recognise that editors such as Lawrence Cohen, Black Kite, Jehochman et al. are acting in good faith (although I disagree with them about the content issue) and I understand the reasons for bringing this RfArb. However, I think it would be a mistake to view this as primarily a user conduct issue - although I don't doubt that there has been misconduct and disruptive editing involved in this dispute (which can be dealt with using blocks, as per normal procedure) there is still a bona fide content issue here (i.e. whether it is appropriate to say in the lead section "waterboarding is a form of torture"). Blocking the more aggressive editors won't make that issue go away. Walton^One 15:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

Not merely a content dispute, this is also a case about behavior problems: tendentious editing, frustration of consensus, pushing original research in the form of synthesis and fringe theories, and sock puppetry. The locus of dispute is waterboarding, a contentious political topic.

Unfortunately, I have not yet had any opportunity to edit the article, because it has been constantly protected. I had hope to advance this one to good article or featured article standards. That's why I have stated that I would not use admin powers in this dispute, though I hoped that uninvolved administrators would. [19][20] Many attempts at dispute resolution have failed, and not for lack of effort. Perhaps ArbCom can help. Jehochman ^Talk 19:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lawrence Cohen

Thanks to Henrik for filing. Jehochman is correct, this is only superficially viewable as a content matter. It's a complete breakdown in understanding of NPOV, and what that means, which has led to intractable arguments, incivility, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, vote stacking, external inadvertant disruption of Wikipedia by Harvard law students, multiple attempts by editors and admins to try everything in resolution from handing out flowers with hugs and cookies to practically beating editors with bricks now. Nothing has worked to calm this situation since the time frame of Archive 5, begining November 2007 (please read, to watch the downward beginning with the infamous "Foreign opinion is irrelevant" comment), and the closer it has moved to the beginnings of the American 2008 election cycle. Waterboarding is one of the major political hot potatoes here, along with the Iraq War. I posted this summary (please read it, if possible) last night on ANI. I noted that in the past 24-48 hours, or so, that all Hell finally did break loose on the article, article RFC, and related pages after constantly boiling. Proof that this will probably only get worse without a mandatory, enforced Arbitration article probation is the timing of this all Hell, that I just realized when I sat down to write this statement: this final outbreak of insanity and everyone apparently upping the stakes happened right after and during the Iowa and New Hampshire election primaries here. This article will only get worse between now and November and disrupt Wikipedia unless it's locked down. If the case is not taken, I'm begging you to at the least state you reject the case, but support here standard article probation, and give admins undisputed leeway to take a firm hand with this article and related for at least the next year to guard against disruption. All other mediation attempts have failed. Mediation attempts outside of the standard Mediation groups was attempted, as well as bringing in various people over a prolonged period of time via the Reliable Sources noticeboard, Fringe Theories noticeboard, NPOV talk page, Reliable sources talk page, AN, ANI, and I've lost track of where else. None have been successful.

Update: Black Kite's summary about the fact that a lot of these SPAs look, smell, geolocate and in fact the same same IP address as User:BryanFromPalatine/User:DeanHinnen (plus have edited on Free Republic, his focus), a notorious AC-banned right wing zealot, puppetmaster, and troll, is compelling. I had made that point several times after I first noticed the notes on the 209 IP talk page, and looked into it, but various people had dismissed my concerns under AGF. I don't know if AGF holds up anymore there, seeing now that Illinois is the home of these characters. Please consider this as well. I have found extensive evidence that BryanFromPalatine is back, and want to present it as part of this arbitration. Start here, for evidence of this. Lawrence Cohen 20:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:Blue Tie's sockpuppetry witch-hunt comment: I don't think the problem here is a case of anyone acting out in a fashion as Abigail did, but rather a case of someone using many names, disrupting Wikipedia: "We are mob, for there are so many of us.". Lawrence Cohen 20:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OtterSmith (htom)

Not an administrator; I think that this may be premature, as the RfC cited above has not been closed (and discussion continues there) and we have not tried either formal mediation or the new rules proposed. However, there is a problem and it may be possible that the ArbCom may be able to help.

There are several many things going on there.

A POV dispute

whether the statement "Waterboarding is torture" is NPOV or POV.

A POV dispute

whether the statement "Waterboarding is a form of torture" is NPOV or POV.

An ownership dispute

those who support the two statements above as NPOV owning the article, or not.

A bullying dispute

people are being "threatened" with CheckUser, ArbCon, blocking, ... and reacting badly to this. (Hint to all -- the way to build trust and good faith is not to issue threats, whether or not deserved.)

A content dispute

what the physical process of waterboarding is. (This is what drew me into the article, I thought the process was poorly described.)

A sources dispute

To my eye, some of the usually reliable sources are confounding waterboarding (whatever that is, it's agreed -- well, it seems to be agreed -- by all that it's not water cure) with water cure. As a result, these sources (to me) cease to be reliable about this topic. This is not about the sources being right or wrong, but that particular citation in the source is confounding two different things, and it would be SYN to claim the confounded citation supported either thing.

A political dispute

Politicians of all stripes have been making claims about waterboarding, hoping for political advantage; within the article, how relevant are their opinions and judgments.

A popular dispute

whether the USA's population's opinion, as polled, is relevant.

Doubtless there are more. There's a huge echo chamber there of "Buzzword is Baaaad!"; to me, it's unencyclopedic.

I fear there will be more, here, as well. htom (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WAS 4.250

The article as it stands is quite good, and we easily could do worse than simply freezing the article til hell freezes over. Both evidence and logic indicate some people are pushing a non-neutral non-evidence-based POV. Everyone agrees waterboarding is part of an interrogation technique. What part? Is it the question? the answer? the reward for cooperating? No, it is obviously a punishment, a threat of pain, an actual pain. How much pain, how big a punishment? How do you measure that? Maybe by how fast it works? 14 seconds is how fast. How much punishment, how severe a punishment needs to be to qualify as torture seems a less relevant a question to some than who is doing what to who. If George Bush authorized something to be done to a terrorist, it obviously is not torture - too good for them if they lived is what it was - can't be torture. Writing neutral encyclopedia articles requires a certain level of emotional distancing. Contributors who show difficulty with doing that need to be told their emotional COI is not helpful to the goals of this WikiMedia project regarding the content of this article, but thanks for trying. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Neon White

I was originally drawn to the article from a debate at the Reliable sources noticeboard.Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#.22Foreign_opinion_is_irrelevant.22 On entering and reading the already much discussed subject, it seemed clear that there was a handful of editors, one a simgle purpose account, trying to centre this article around the recent US controversy and to give it, in my opinion, undue weight in the article in the historical and worldwide context of waterboarding. I believe this is the core issue and some of the other disputes have been used to confuse this point. The consensus has been continually disrupted by editors continual hammering the same personal view points, misrepresenting or misunderstanding policy on NPOV refusing to verify that the dispute represents any more than a small minority of current political views, many of which are vague and non-committal and deserve any more proportion of the weight in the article. It became clear from comments that these were biased editors basing their objections on their own political views to the point of ignoring the balance of sources and the consensus. --neonwhite user page talk 17:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Blue Tie

Comments are on three issues:

1). Article Problems

2). Are all the parties actually here?

3). Do we need arbitration yet? I am not the least bit interested in commenting on editor behaviors at this time. We could all probably behave better but I do not presently consider the behaviors to be so horrific that they demand arbitration. But more about that later.

Issue 1: Article Problems

I consider the article problems to be of two kinds; 1) NPOV violations and 2) Potentially ignorant or incorrect information that nevertheless comes from verifiable and "apparently" reliable sources. This sounds like OR but I will explain it in detail to show that it is something different.

I identified the first problem very quickly after getting to the page. The page asserts "Waterboarding is torture", which I originally read uncritically and with acceptance. However, upon review, I noticed that there is a substantial dispute in a wide variety of venues over whether it really is or should be classified as torture. Most people think it is torture, but I discovered that it is far more than just a tiny minority and that some of the folk who dispute that it is torture are very notable.

I turned to policy.

I read wikipedia policy at WP:WEIGHT and based upon Jimbo Wales criteria, the minority should be classified as "significant".

I read WP:ASF and based upon the fact that there is a dispute from a significant minority as described above, I determined that the statement "Waterboarding is torture" "seriously disputed".

Again, per WP:ASF something that is seriously disputed is an opinion, not a fact and so, the statement "Waterboarding is torture" is not a fact.

As it is currently worded, the first words of the article assert in the voice of wikipedia that "Waterboarding is torture" without any suggestion or hint that this is not a fact but an opinion. Though later in the article the dispute is discussed, the lead, which should be a good summary of the article content does not mention this dispute. And, as I said, it asserts an opinion as though it were a fact. For these reasons, the lead to the article is in violation of WP:NPOV.

The second issue has only just entered into my conciousness in the last few days and I frankly think the problem is extremely challenging. Even if the article were written by me alone, I would have to seriously research things because it appears that is confusion or conflation in the popular media over what exactly waterboarding is. And this confusion may not be just incidental. Some of the people who object that waterboarding is not *SOMETIMES* torture say that it depends upon what waterboarding actually is and how it is done. So this is not exactly trivial. Because an ever widening selection of "treatments" are being subsumed under the lable "Waterboarding" the debaters may not actually be talking about the same things. And the press may not be reliably reporting what waterboarding is. I am led to wonder: "When did we first use the term 'Waterboarding' and what exactly was the technique that this label applied to?" "Is Waterboarding a species of treatment -- and thus a specific process, or is it a class of treatments that may encompass a variety of treatments?" "If it is a variety of treatements what are the conditions that distinguish it from, say Water Cure?" (I can suggest one main difference but this is OR). This is a definitional issue and the description of what waterboarding is, has become so fuzzy that that certainly the article's lead does not encompass the full extent of all the possibilities -- and perhaps it may not be able to do so. Without any desire to argue with any other editors but just as an exercise in my mind, I have asked "What is Waterboarding?" and I do not have a good answer even though I have studied the sources. But the sources also may not know. They may be assuming things (as our article frequently does). I want to reference a recent article that I read, but I will have to come back some time to do it. But the article described how an editor of a scholarly magazine had published the "fact" that some person was the first in a certain area. However, a week or two later he took that back and said something like "Here I sit in one of the largest research libraries in the world, on the campus where these things happened, and if I had just got off my butt to do some research I would have found out that there was someone much earlier. But instead I just repeated what I had already heard so many times." I think that in the current media frenzy, a great deal of "repeating" is going on and sources are tainted -- causing substantial confusion. there may also be issues of Advocacy Journalism involed as well... all of which taint the reliability of the information. Best sources need to be used. This is all just swirling around in my head right now, and I am not interested in editing based upon this problem, but I think the problem is real and I think it is affecting the disputes as well.

Issue 2: Participants

I am not sure how this selection of participants was chosen but some other people have weighed in and they are not included here. Some names come to mind as follows: Chris Bainbridge, Lciaccio, Shamulou, Theokrat, Akhilleus and Vhettinger. Nomen Nescio was not mentioned but described himself as somewhat involved. Actually he is pretty involved. Another editor has left the page. I am not sure if that means he is not part of this issue but he might be since he left because he felt he was driven from the page by other editors. His name is Randy2063. There may be more who ought to be in this case (if it is a case); thats just the few that I am aware of off the top of my head. I also point out that Raymond Arritt is not really involved except to protect the page. That seems like simple mop handling and not really involvement. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 3: Do we need Arbitration

Maybe we do need it, but perhaps not just yet. There still remains an unclosed RfC. Shouldn't that be handled first? We have not tried mediation, both informal and formal. Shouldn't that be tried second? Wouldn't Arbcom be the last thing to do? I personally am not excited to have to deal with all the evidence stuff and especially "he said she said" finger pointing in Arbcom, so I am hoping that this is not accepted .... yet. But I accept that when all else fails this is the venue.

NOTE: I reserve the right to return and refactor these comments into something more concise or that more correctly conveys my thought. If I change meaning I will probably strike thru. If I make it more concise I will probably just edit and leave it that way. Please do not criticize if I do that to make things easier to read later on. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I am no sockpuppet. I do not condone sockpuppetry. But I think the witch hunts for sock puppets are more destructive to the project these days than sock puppets are. It seems these witch hunts are hurting many people ... the witches, the reverend Parish's and the John Proctors. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hypnosadist

Please just let this POV-war end so that the article can be edited to make it better. If that is not possible then protect the article until the end of the US presidential election. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Remember

There has been a long-term ongoing debate about whether to include the words "waterboarding is torture" in some form in the lead of the article for several months now. There are people that are firmly for this statement and people that are firmly against this statement. Both sides claim to be on the side of NPOV and there seems to be no way that consensus can be reached. People positions have become inflexible,intractable, and adamantine. This has resulted in the article being completely locked for long periods of time. In addition, there has been various sketchy activity by other editors that has confounded the whole process of reaching consensus. I don't know if arbitration is the right place for this, but all other attempts at moving discussion forward between all parties has broken down. Remember (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Badagnani

I ask only one thing: that any editor or admin weighing in here first read *all* the discussion archives of the Waterboarding article. This will be a significant investment of time but without doing so the necessary context will not be sufficient to make any substantive decision about the article. I have nothing further to add, as all of what is needed is contained in the discussion archives. I respectfully ask that any editors or admins eventually making any decision regarding this article affirm that they have done so. Badagnani (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chris Bainbridge

I originally got involved after a posting by Lawrence on WP:RSN asking for uninvolved editors to contribute. After watching for a few weeks, I will agree with him that the presence of certain editors is extremely disruptive to the consensus building approach. Almost every posting by a certain editor is designed to drive other editors apart and provoke confrontation and endless argument. The endless contributions from anonymous Sprint wireless IP addresses, the confirmed sockpuppeting from those addresses, Neutral Good's Request for Adminship for the sock-puppeteer, the support of those addresses here etc. I don't know how these editors are connected, but it seems to involve Free Republic somehow. While all of this is going on, any attempt to build consensus will fail, and editors will be driven away from the article.

I also agree that this disruption is completely about American politics. There are absolutely no citations from before 2001 questioning the status of the various waterboarding techniques as a form of torture. The dispute is wholly as a result of its use by the CIA, and those who wish to justify that use. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved MastCell

In response to interminable AN/I threads on the issue, I proposed a solution here which would involve temporarily topic-banning what I viewed to be one of the worst offenders, a single-purpose POV-pushing tendentious agenda account, as a first step. There was some support, but some involved parties objected and things ended up here.

It's a mess. I would prefer to see it handled by the community, via topic bans and informal article probation, but that solution may not have the legitimacy that an ArbCom mandate would have. I don't think this is a job for mediation - there's a likely IP sock of a banned editor heavily involved as well as some agenda-driven SPA's, and they often don't lend themselves particularly well to mediation. I'd urge ArbCom to accept this - it's a clear user-conduct case occurring on top of a content dispute. If the case is rejected, then there needs to be a real, significant community-based intervention. Otherwise we may just as well protect the article indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 21:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved ChrisO

I've not been involved in this dispute or editing this article in any way up to now, but I've reviewed its history in response to its appearance here so that an independent view can be provided. I agree entirely with MastCell's comments above and support a referral to the Arbitration Committee. There is a content dispute here, but the main reason it's not being resolved satisfactorily is because of a number of editors seeking to impose their own particular POV - in some cases through rather obvious sockpuppetry - instead of trying to reach a good-faith consensus. The logjam on this article can best be resolved by tackling the conduct issues that have made the content issues impossible to solve so far. The number of editors involved make it unlikely that individual admins or the community at large can resolve this satisfactorily, so the ArbCom's involvement would seem to be the best way of achieving this goal. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Sandstein

I recommend that the Committee accept this case, not to address the content dispute, but with a view to providing for conditions under which this article can be productively edited again, such as article probation. I don't know whether there is indeed any sockpuppetry or other concerted disruption going on, but if there is, the Committee is best positioned to authoritatively determine and sanction it. It is not helpful, however, to present the content dispute as a conduct issue by phrasing it in terms of OR, NPOV and assorted other content policy violations. These arguments are just the inevitable consequence of the content dispute and are accordingly unsuited to be addressed through the arbitration process. (My involvement with the article is limited to reviewing a good article nomination in December, and, I think, one or two protected edit requests.) Sandstein (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved BQZip01

I was involved in this discussion, but was never informed of ArbCom. Given the sheer volume of the discussion, I really don't mind so much, but I wish I had been notified and no malice is assumed unless proven otherwise (I don't expect that to even be possible). IMHO, the problem resides in individual (not individual users, per se, but moreso individual cited people) views of what constitutes torture. Those opinions are present in individual user interpretations and tend to color the discussion accordingly. That said, the basic technique is what should really be emphasized here, not a legal definition (since laws vary from country to country). That its status is disputed should definitely be included in the article and proclamations of its status as "torture" should be avoided. There are lots of things permitted under the Geneva Conventions that U.S. police cannot do; as an example: keeping prisoners awake for 20 hours of every day allowing only 4 nonconsecutive hours of sleep. Some organizations and governments believe this constitutes torture. It certainly isn't permitted in any state in the US, but (and this is the distinction that continues to be missed) it isn't "torture" under the Geneva Conventions. The same goes for this technique. Labeling it as an interrogation technique is certainly factual. Stating that it is not permitted by DoD personnel is certainly factual, but drawing a conclusion that it is illegal and/or is "torture" is not the job of Wikipedia. United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once proclaimed about porn (rather ineptly IMHO), "I'll know it when I see it." With all due respect to Wikipedians, you aren't the Supreme Court and it is not up to you to decide. That there is controversy regarding a subject needs to be addressed. There should be no absolute proclamations on its status. I truly hope the ArbCom decides to review this and I look forward to their decision. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

• Accept. Content dispute? Yes. However, the circumstances surrounding this dispute seem a bit of concern to the smooth running of Wikipedia. There are clear signs of a battleground that need to be addressed. There are other issues of sockpuppetry that need to be verified as well. The involvment of a large number of users has made this dispute too hard to be solved via regular channels. Therefore, I see no reason to reject this case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

David Howe (claimant to King of Mann)

Initiated by Kingofmann (talk) at 03:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• kingofmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Initiating Party)
• Hu12 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Jmlk17 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Newguy34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Heraldic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wjhonson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• User_talk:Hu12#Arbitration
• User_talk:Jmlk17#Arbitration
• User_talk:Newguy34#Arbitration
• User_talk:Heraldic#Arbitration
• User_talk:Wjhonson#Arbitration

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

In an attempt to resolve this issue with user Newguy34 and having researched for several hours his edits as well as many others, based on the discussions of several editors on my biography's talk page at Talk:David_Howe_(claimant_to_King_of_Mann) with those attempting to edit to Wikipedia's policies, I do not feel that this issue is easily resolved and it does suggest that there is a group effort to edit to the negative with three of the parties involved as well as other anonymous editors not cited using various USENET groups as a base for orchestrating their efforts. See MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#Unreal_Royal citing user Wjhonson involvement. See Talk:David_Howe_(claimant_to_King_of_Mann)/Archive_2#Celebrity_Friends_and_Royal_Cousins illustrating user Hearldic's participation in a USENET group with a long list of libelous claims against me.

Statement by Kingofmann

I am David Howe, the subject of a Wikipedia Biography.

My initial dispute had to do with the inclusion of a business that I own, that has nothing to do with my notability, on a biography page about me. I requested to Admin Hu12 that he aid me with the removal on his talk page and I cited WP:Blp#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy as the reason why. I eventually deleted the material I felt violated my privacy and stated why on my talk page. User Newguy34 reverted it twice and that is when I requested page protection which was issued.

In response to what seemed like several editors of my biography page, namely Newguy34, Heraldic, Wjhonson and some anonymous users involvement in what seems to be an orchestrated effort to circumvent WP:BLP and present a negative point of view see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#Unreal_Royal, Admin Hu12 on his talk page as well as my biography's talk page stated, "The Media bias is evident in many of the sources, which are attributable and doesn't surprise me since its rooted in forms of Cultural biass. The subject of David Howe is no doubt a Political one to many, however lets keep these biases out of the article space." His request has had no effect.

There are numerous examples on the biography's talk page that show the well telegraphed intent of some editors. Just a few are as follows: December 27, 2007, editor Newguy34 was an advocate for the Wikipedia blacklisted site that has since be revised several times to appear less libelous. Talk:David_Howe_(claimant_to_King_of_Mann)/Archive_2#Celebrity_Friends_and_Royal_Cousins Despite the fact the site isn't a reliable third-party source, addressing another editor's objection to the site he stated, "Your bias appears clear, namely to advance Howe's claims. The author of the website is well respected in genealogy circles and has fully cited and referenced his "opinions."" In fact none of these things are true. The author of the site at the bottom of the first page describes himself, as of January 9, 2008, "an accountant with a keen amateur interest in history and genealogy."

Heraldic and Wjhonson advocating for including libelous blacklisted site see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#unrealroyal.com and then attempting to get it removed from the blacklist See MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#Unreal_Royal. Here it was also revealed that Wjhonson had conspired with the author of the blacklisted site to misuse Wikipedia.

Statement by Wjhonson

When a person has achieved that level of notability that a biography is acceptable, all known facts about the person have an equal chance of being represented. The person, short of pointing out libelous statements, has no special prerogative to exclude certain details. We do not allow this priviledge to Ann Coulter, we do not allow it to Jimmy Wales, we allow it to nobody. It is a red-herring argument that only issues *related* to notability are included. We include a biography based on notability, but once included, each statement does not need to pass notability to be included.

Contrary to the claim that I was involved in "...circumvent[ing] WP:BLP and present[ing] a negative point of view see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#Unreal_Royal...." I submit that all of my edits have quite plainly adhered to WP:BLP. The issue regarding what I perceive as an out-of-process blacklisting is a seperate issue to this article. That the http: //www.unrealroyal.com site was blacklisted as an "attack site", when IMHO it is a "criticism" site of a *public figure* as the King of Man is most clearly. If the King of Man were not himself a public figure, than pointed criticism might be a valid reason for blacklisting a site which criticizes a Wikipedian. The fact that he is a *public figure* puts him outside that purview and he is then fair-game just as surely as George Bush is himself. We do not blacklist sites critical of Bush, and if Bush became a Wikipedian we would not blacklist sites critical of Bush.

Contary to the assertion that "The author of the website is well respected in genealogy circles and has fully cited and referenced his "opinions."" In fact none of these things are true.", I submit that indeed the author is well-respected in genealogy circles, and his fair-and-even criticism of David Howe is fully cited and referenced.

Contary to the assertion that the site is "...libelous..." is my assertion that it in fact engages in well-reasoned and pointed criticism of a public figure.

Contrary to the assertion that "...Wjhonson had conspired with the author of the blacklisted site to misuse Wikipedia." is my assertion that outside Wikipedia, in particular on the soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup, I know the author of the website. My agreeing with his perception that his website was unfairly blacklisted, is not a conspiracy.

Statement by Newguy34

I am disappointed that this has reached the ArbCom, and am not sure quite where to start in this unfortunate episode.

First, either Mr. Howe is notable as an individual (for which information such as his primary business venture is relevant) or he is notable for only a single event (namely his claim) and the BLP should be merged with another article. I think a BLP of Mr. Howe is unwarranted. As it relates to WP guidelines, a person is generally notable if a) the person has received significant recognized awards or honors, or b) the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

Further, when a person is associated with only one event, such as an unsubstantiated claim to be related to ancient royalty, consideration should be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted.

And from BLP, if reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy, which is exactly the situation we are facing in this matter. I fail to see how Mr. Howe has achieved any notability other than through this singular claim, and the recent coverage of it. In spite of this, a single user Lazydown has made the majority of edits in support of Mr. Howe's claim, while several editors (including those involved in this arbitration matter) have been consistent in attempting to achieve a balance and neutrality to the article, Lazydown's (and now Howe's) protestations that we are somehow violating NPOV aside. The support for this assertion is contained on the article's talk page and the edit history, and is clear for anyone to read.

As to the information I seek to have included, I believe the inclusion of Mr. Howe's business is relevant information, which is entirely permissible and standard for a BLP. I cited the information from a verifiable, reliable source in accordance with WP policies. The fact that he owns a Glass Doctor franchise in Frederick is a matter of public record and comes from press releases penned by (or authorized by) him. I can not see how it now should be excluded (in its present form) from a biographical article [emphasis added] on claimed grounds of privacy, especially given that it was Mr. Howe who first put this information in the public domain. That Mr. Howe does not like the relevant information he has placed in the public domain being used in a BLP article about himself is insufficient support for its exclusion under privacy concerns.

I attempted to reach consensus with Mr. Howe on the issue (as evidenced on his talk page), but he refuses to discuss the matter further and instead has made a very serious threat of legal action against me (and possibly Wikipedia) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kingofmann. A threat which I take very seriously, and for which I believe he should be admonished. He has not engaged in dispute resolution. These are indisputable facts, evidenced in various talk pages.

Mr. Howe's assertion that there are several editors involved in "an orchestrated effort to circumvent BLP and present a negative point of view" is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and represents libel. I have never met any of the other editors. My edits have been to retain NPOV after numerous attempts by Lazydown to edit the article in a light most advantageous to Mr. Howe and his claim. Lazydown's edits are typically accompanied by accusations that the editors involved in this arbitration are violating NPOV and other WP policies. I have posted that I believe we are involved in a content dispute. I have attempted to reach consensus on the issue with Lazydown, but he too refuses to discuss the matter. Instead, he posts accusations of a number of us on the talk pages of several administrators, namely Hu12. As such, I believe that Lazydown has not been exhibiting good faith, and am curious why Lazydown is not also a subject of this arbitration action given the inordinate number of edits he has made.

I also take strong personal offense to Mr. Howe's implication that the edits of myself and others amount to a "well telegraphed intent" on our part. Again, I have never met the other editors in question, and there is no evidence or factual basis to support this latest assertion. Contrary to Mr. Howe's assertion, I was not an advocate for the now-blacklisted site, but rather sought to understand the objections of Lazydown in that matter. It is important to note that at the time of my posts on the matter, the website in question was not blacklisted. It is also important to note that the criticism of Mr. Howe on the website in question is fully cited and is fully referenced. The occupation of the website author is not relevant to his recognized expertise in the matters the website discusses. I, too, believe the blacklisting of the website is inappropriate and uncalled for.

In summary, I believe this is a very disturbing series of events, filled with red herring arguments, selective adherence to WP policies, inappropriate COI on the part of Howe, and an exercise of bad faith on the part of Howe and user Lazydown. I welcome the consideration of these matters by ArbCom, but as one who believes in the Wikipedia project, I am disappointed that it has come to this. Newguy34 (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Heraldic

Firstly, I should say that I have been on steep learning curve when it comes to the Wikipedia way of doing things. Hopefully I am not repeating any of my earlier procedural errors.

Given the nature of Mr Howe’s claims it is understandable that they would come under considerable scrutiny. I do not think that it is in Wikipedia’s interest to allow the Howe article to be perceived in any way as an endorsement of his claims. To that end I have attempted to provide a balance to the Howe article, clarifying certain broad statements or citing references that reflect that all is not as clear cut as Howe may wish.

With regard to the unrealroyal site; whilst the observations of the author may not meet Wikipedia guidelines (as I now understand), I do believe the factual content is worthy of note. It was for the latter reason I questioned its blacklisting. As for its reinstatement, you will see that I stated that if it was to remain blacklisted it should be for its content not because Wjhonson chose to query the blacklisting. I do not believe that simply disagreeing with an admin is a misuse of Wikipedia.

As part of this arbitration process, I hope that the administrators will also look into the relevant issue of sockpuppets. The dedication shown by users Theisles and Lazydown in the editing the article to reflect Howe’s case and the rigid application of Wiki procedures when it comes to the exclusion of any material that is critical of Howe has given rise to the suspicion that they are either Howe himself or a close associate. The most recent example can be found at Talk:David_Howe_(claimant_to_King_of_Mann)#The_Viscount_Howe_claim .Clarification of their status will go along way to calming things down.

For the record, I am not the owner, author or webmaster of the unrealroyal website. Nor have I had contact with any of the editors here to listed other than through Wikipedia public talk pages.--Heraldic 09:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

---

User:R. fiend

Initiated by SirFozzie (talk) at 22:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• SirFozzie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (Initiating Party)
• Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• R. fiend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• R. fiend notified of ArbCom case
• Alison notified of ArbCom case

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Two threads at ANI, as well as current RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/R. fiend‎

Statement by SirFozzie

R. fiend has been accused of using his administrator powers in numerous inappropriate ways. Among the incidents of questionable adminstrator rights brought up in the RfC:

A) Reverting to a preferred version in the Black Irish page, and then immediately semi-protecting the page to prevent the IP addresses that he was edit-warring against from editing the page. Then, having "won" the edit war, left the page semi-protected indefinitely for almost six months. Revert Protection, Protection Log

B) Continual insertion of questionably-sourced information about a person' (that would violate WP:BLP if the person in question was living). R. fiend again semi-protected the page (without any message as to reason) to "lock out" the anonymous IP editor from editing the page. Link to diff of protection. When the anonymous editor in question requested the page unprotection, two administrators asked R. fiend for the rationale for the protection. He stated that his edits were per the talk page's consensus On the administrator's talk page], but when asked for a link to show this consensus, he did not reply.

C) R. fiend blocked User:Ed Poor in an apparent error in October, leaving no block summary. User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson unblocked Ed nine hours later in the absence of any communication. When questioned on it on his talk page by a three other admins,^[21], he replied, "Hmmm. Looks like a mistake. Oh well. No harm done.".^[22] When it was suggested by User:WJBscribe that he apologize, R. fiend just walked away and never approached User:Ed Poor on the matter again. (Block log). When this matter was brought up as part of the RfC, he apologized stating that he must have been drunk or high while he edited, which he stated he did infrequently. Link to R. fiend statement about block of Ed Poor. Ed Poor has asked that the block be expunged from his record.

D)R. fiend has been involved in a content dispute with User:Domer48 over the Segi article.^[23][24][25]. He then went on to block Domer48 for WP:3RR violation on the same article, even though he was in dispute and editing there. Nor had R. fiend approached Domer48 at any time before the block. While it is fairly well understood that Domer48 was at least at 3 Reverts (and may have broken 3RR), R. fiend, as a participant in the dispute should NOT have been the one to carry out the block. After Domer48 was blocked, uninvolved admins, User:Luna Santin and User:Metros and other editors voiced their concerns.^[26][27] R. fiend replied that he didn't see any problem with being a participant in the dispute and blocking Domer, stating "If I didn't block him, someone else would have" ^[28] Luna Santin questioned that comment, saying that it could be considered an abuse of admin privileges, that besides the obvious conflict of interest in the block, it could have a chilling effect on future editors who found themselves in dispute with R. fiend.'^[29]. R. fiend chose not to reply, instead refused to unblock and got more irate^[30] when questioned by myself .^[31]

In the interests of brevity, I will not list several other incidents that R. fiend was involved in, however, should ArbCom wish to review this additional information, I invite them to review the evidence posted at theRfC on R.fiend‎ Throughout, R. fiend has refused to acknowledge that he had done anything wrong in most of the incidents above, stating that he thought folks were whining, and that most of his actions were fundamentally correct. He also says that he is a self-admitted "Snide Bastard" and that folks knew what they were getting when they passed his RfA, therefore this allows his behavior. [32]

ArbCom should accept this case, review the incivility and use of his administrator rights and privileges, and determine if at least a temporary suspension of these rights, if not a permanent revocation of his administrator rights, is called for.

Statement by Alison

I originally opened the recent RfC on User:R. fiend, having unsuccessfully tried to have the issues addressed at WP:ANI. The desired outcome was as follows:

1. R. fiend needs to completely refrain from using his administrative tools on articles in which he is involved, even tangentially. This particularly applies to article protection. Instead, he should apply to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection as any other editor should so that a neutral administrator can review the situation and act accordingly. This is how other administrators operate. He needs to understand the protection policy and what it covers.
2. R. fiend should also pay particularly close attention to the policy on civility, as administrators are obliged to follow this in the same way as any other editor. In ways, administrators should also be exemplars when it comes to civility, politeness and respect for their fellow-editors.
3. If R. fiend performs an administrative action for whatever reason and is requested to comment on it, he should do so rather than simply ignoring it.

These are basic admin requirements yet, one RfC and much discussion later, R. fiend has still refused to sign up to these. An admin should never protect an article they are in dispute over and, as a rule, should not subsequently edit a protected article especially if there's a dispute involved. In his career as an admin, R. fiend has only done about 25 article protects, but a good 6 of these have been problematic. From the RfC:

• R. fiend was in an edit-war over addition of "Popular culture references" to the Black Irish article,^[33][34][35] and chose to lock out the anonymous editors by reverting to his own version^[36] and immediately semi-protecting the article without specifying any protect rationale.^[37]. This was in May; the article remained semi-protected and untagged until I discovered it today (Prot. log).

• He was involved in a content dispute with an anonymous editor on the Patrick Pearse article, regarding additions relating to Ruth Dudley Edwards.^[38][39] the anonymous editor had been removing largely unsourced commentary regarding the subject's sexuality and had been using good edit summaries to justify the changes, whereas R. fiend had been using none. R. fiend then indefinitely semi-protected the article without specifying any protect rationale.^[40]. The anonymous editor made a request to unprotect on WP:RPP. I was on RPP patrol at the time and handled the request. Rather than simply undo the rather blatantly inappropriate protect, I left a polite message on his talk page^[41] requesting clarification. Another regular RPP patrolling admin, User:Steel359 weighed in on his talk page to concur^[42] R. fiend replied on my talk page here stating consensus was achieved on the talk page. When I checked, I could not find it and when I asked where, he never replied. Nor did he reply to my question, "This sounds from what you are saying that you semi-protected the page to block out an anon editor who is involved in a content dispute, and is in dialog. Is this the case here?". The article was subsequently unprotected by User:Steel359 with the comment, "Inappropriate use of semi-protection". A second unprotect request had been made on WP:RPP and Steel had gone to investigate. He also requested of R. fiend to point to talk page consensus, but he could/did not. (Prot. log). Today, R. fiend still remains active on this article.

• R. fiend was involved in reverting the Shaun Glass by changing it to a redirect.^[43] He changed the article to a redir, whereupon another editor reverted and began adding detail to the article.^[44] A few days later he returned, reverted to his redirect^[45] and straight away semi-protected it indefinitely^[46] without commentary whatsoever; neither on his edits, on talk pages, nor in the protection summary, even though the article had been significantly updated in the interim. The protect is still in place today. (Prot. log)

• Similarly, on the article As I Lay Dying, R fiend redirected this to As I Lay Dying (novel) without comment in what was a dispute between the significance of the redirect to the novel or to As I Lay Dying (band). Another editor reverted his changes^[47] whereupon R. fiend reverted again^[48] and immediately fully protected the article indefinitely^[49] without any comments whatsoever, even though a number of editors had disagreed. The protect is still in place, almost two months later (Prot. log)

• In November, he was revert-warring with User:Domer48 on Kevin Barry, yet another "Troubles"-related article.^[50][51] He had been in a content dispute and was reverting without discussion using Admin Rollback. He then immediately fully protected the article without edit summaries.^[52] This was subsequently unprotected an hour later by uninvolved admin User:Mercury with the comment, "note on administrators talk".^[53] Mercury's comment was, "Whats going on at Kevin Barry. It appears that you were edit warring, and have protected your version, or have I mistaken?".^[54] At that point, he had been repeatedly warned about edit-warring on that article by a number of people. R. fiend chose to blank most of the warning messages^[55] and walk away without responding to anyone, including User:Mercury. Mercury was left with no option but to leave a warning, "Please note that edit warring is disruptive and can lead to preventative blocks. Additionally, please do not apply protection to articles you are currently in dispute.",^[56] and unprotect (Prot. log)

• This week, R. fiend was involved in revert-warring with User:Domer48 and User:BigDunc on the Easter Rising article, another "Troubles" article. The article was then protected by uninvolved admin, User:Luna Santin with the statement, "edit warring".^[57] R. fiend then went on to make a revert to the article using his ability as an admin.^[58] When called on this, he self-reverted two hours later^[59] Later, the article was again fully protected due to the same edit-warriors. This time, R. fiend immediately made an (albeit trivial) edit to the article using his admin powers^[60][61]. (Prot. log). This led to the matter of this admin being brought up at WP:ANI, which led to the RfC and then this RFAr case.

Additionally, As SirFozzie notes, R. fiend blocked User:Domer48 for an arguable 3RR offense, even though he was revert-warring with him at the time.

In October, R. fiend blocked User:Ed Poor indefinitely for no reason whatsoever. When questioned on it by a number of admins, he said, " Hmmm. Looks like a mistake. Oh well. No harm done.", and left it at that. He never again approached Ed Poor on the matter to explain what happened. Yesterday, I discovered an essay, written by R. fiend, about Conservapedia. Ed Poor happens to be an admin there^[62] and R. fiend states the following there;

“	It wasn't long before I was given a one day block for "edit warring", by none other than our own User:Ed Poor! (How in the name of fuck did that guy ever get to be a bureaucrat here; not one of Wikipedia's shining moments.) [... Some other sysop was] Truly a stupid, stupid, man, who cannot grasp simple logic, and speaks in a series of non-sequiturs that seem almost randomly generated. Ed ain't much better, actually.	”
— R. fiend, here

Ed Poor is quite upset about his block being on his record as he's currently on parole and now needs to explain why he was blocked and unblocked. When I questioned R. fiend directly on the matter yesterday, quoting the essay,^[63] he replied that he was possibly "really really drunk when that happened (maybe even high) [...] there have been occasions where I have blacked out, and done things I really can't attest to."^[64]

As an admin, he has been quite unresponsive and uncivil, and dismissive in his edit summaries and talk page comments. For example, when informed that he was being discussed on WP:ANI^[65], he replied^[66], "Thanks, but I'm less than inclined to care about such inanity", eventually only participating when he was informed again^[67] that it could result in an RfC. Edit summaries such as "restoring FASCIST CENSORSHIP or REFERENCED MATERIAL. This has a FOOTNOTE. Therefore it CANNIT be removed or altered by ANYONE, ever. To do so would be ORIGINAL RESEARCH!!!!111!!11oneone1!!!",^[68] humourous as it may be intended, are highly inappropriate. Comments like "Good. Glad this needless discussion is over. I accept your surrender"^[69] are inappropriate and needlessly inflammatory, especially considering "surrender" carries certain well-known connotations on "Troubles"-related articles. User:Domer48 left a message stating that R. fiend was reported to WP:AN3 for revert-warring.^[70] R. fiend then blanked it with the summary, "whoop-de-fucking-doo".^[71]

In summary, I did not want this issue to reach the ArbCom stage. All I wanted was R. fiend to commit to the "desired outcome" of the RfC; that he refrain from using the tools in an abusive manner, especially on articles/editors with which he was involved. He refused to sign up to these , noting that it's more expedient that he do these things himself, rather than call in a neutral admin, or use {{editprotected}} or whatever. So long as (he feels) another admin would produce the same result, that made it okay. He sees little wrong in what he has been doing here.

Statement by R. fiend

First off, I want to say that the recent spate of free time I've recently had that has allowed to me spent large amounts of time to editing and discussions at Wikipedia is drawing to a close, so I won't be able to devote as much time to this as I have to other things recently, nor will I be editing as regularly in general, for reasons not associated with AN/I, RfC or Arbcom.

Basically, I just want to say this. At the RfC, I clearly stated that I would refrain from obnoxious comments, show more restraint in article protection, and be more careful when blocking people. Other editors seem to have decided ahead of time that I am not going to do theses things. I just think it would make sense to put off an Arbcom until we see if they are right.

Thank you. That is all. -R. fiend (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have a little more time now, I'll say a couple more things here, because, again, there are some misrepresentations. First of all, the information in the Patrick Pearse article was sourced (dispute B in SirFozzies's statement). Someone just didn't like the source, thinking it was biased, so removed all information directly attributed to that source (which, incidentally, is the only available biography of the subject) as well as the source itself from the bibliography. This sort of thing has happened a couple times in the past, and I have spent hours dealing with the matter on the talk page. Some people don't like seeing any criticism of their heroes. They need to read Wikipedia guidelines on NPOV. (The article would pass WP:BLP fine, by the way.)

About Segi (D): there was an edit war going on, but I was not part of it. In the course of constant reversions, essential information (the very defining facts about Segi) was being removed. I assume it was unintentional, and that Domer was not deliberately sabotaging the article to make a point. I put it back in, but as others edit warred it was again reverted to an earlier uncorrected version. Therefore I did not consider myself a party to the dispute, just the clean up as it progressed. In any case, as I said, I intend to be more careful about blocking people in th future.

Also this sentence by SirFozzie is also quite the misrepresentation: "Throughout, R. fiend has refused to acknowledge that he had done anything wrong in most of the incidents above, stating that he thought folks were whining, and that most of his actions were fundamentally correct. He also says that he is a self-admitted 'Snide Bastard' and that folks knew what they were getting when they passed his RfA, therefore this allows his behavior."

The only incident I referred to as "whining" was the minor one that brought the original AN/I (and which SirFozzie seems to have thought to minor to even mention here). I also didn't say I was a "snide bastard", merely that I could be one at times (which is different), nor did I say anything about it allowing my behavior. I only noted that others had made that observation, and that it in and of itself was apparently not seen by the community to be worth declining an RfA.

I also think SirFozzie should question his use of the term "irate."

Again, despite multiple assertions that nothing has been accomplished, and given the fact I've stated improvements that I will make, and the fact that I have made no objectionable actions (as far as I know) since the AN/I, I have to wonder if this is the best use of everyone's time. I'm sure if I am seen to be abusing admin powers in the future there will be no hesitation on the part of several people to bring it to Arbcom then. -R. fiend (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Aatomic1

Item C Above

At least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. I cannot see evidence of this at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/R. fiend. Indeed I can also see evidence that no one noticed.

Aatomic1 (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are three users who certified the RFC, and 24 more who agreed with the summation. Horologium (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Padraig

I'am disappointed that this has reached Arbcom, but giving R. fiend attitude in the RfC, I see no other way that this can now be resolved.--Padraig (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rjd0060

I'd just like to mention that it really is unfortunate that Arbitration has been requested, as we (myself and several others) have tried to resolve these matters elsewhere (ANI and RFC/U as mentioned above), however the lack of consideration and effort by R. fiend to resolve these issues leaves no other alternative. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jj137

I'm sure this has mainly already been said; this matter has gone from talk page → AN/I → RfC → and now ArbCom. I really didn't see any progress whatsoever until the RfC, and even so I don't think there was much. I think it is unfortunate it had to go this far, but it is probably the best way to go if this matter will ever be resolved. In the RfC, Brownhairgirl made a statement proposing R. fiend voluntarily remove his admin status and go back to RfA if he chooses; 16 users accepted the statement. I do not know whether that is the best course of action, but I think it is an option.   jj137 ^♠ 01:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Domer48

A number of Administrators have gone out of their way on the RfC to advise and encourage R. fiend to engage constructively to prevent this escalation. With such support being offered, R. fiend’s attitude unfortunately left no other alternative open other than this final step. --Domer48 (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

• Accept. Kirill 22:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. It appears that there are some concerns that need to be addressed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. FloNight (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept; clearly a long-term issue with no resolution in sight. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I also accept. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Principality of Sealand

Initiated by Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) at 19:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gene Poole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Warlordjohncarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Gene Poole

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Third Opinion
• RFC
• Notifying Gene Poole of a possible solution and his failure to reply.
• Request for Mediation

Statement by Onecanadasquarebishopsgate

What began as a simple debate eventually became an argumentative dispute that eventually led to the dispute resolution process. I used Third opinion and Request for Comment - but Gene Poole would not cooperate, as can be seen here. After progress was made with the Request for Comment (which Gene Poole did not take part in), Gene Poole returned arguing that Sealand is a micronation. Other editors within the discussion page of Principality of Sealand consider Sealand a micronation, but Gene Poole is the only one that does not cooperate with dispute resolution.

It was clear now that because Gene Poole considers Sealand a micronation and I consider Sealand a sovereign state, there was, and still is, a dispute. But Gene poole became less and less cooperative. After the Third Opinion and Request for Comment, I decided to write on his discussion page (after he thought that I was a sockpuppet):

"On the same day as the above was posted I suggested using a solution that has been used for the past week with success (Note: this solution is to have a similar first pargraph to Empire of Atlantium). Maybe this could solve the problem?"

Gene Poole would not reply and after reminding him of the statement I wrote he deleted the reminders and called them trolling. He then wrote on Legal status of Sealand:

"There is no dispute about Sealand's legal status. A single-purpose editor is currently attempting to insinuate an unreferenced, strong pro-sovereignty position into a range of Sealand-related articles, and this appears to be one of them."

After that the dispute continued here, where he questioned my comprehension of the subject and my linguistic ability. I then decided to use Request for Mediation and placed this notice on his discussion page:

"Rather than continue with this absurd to-and-fro, perhaps you would agree to mediation.

I would like to see this dispute resolved, why not in a NPOV way?"

Gene Poole replied with this on my discussion page:

"The matter has only one possible resolution: you must comply fully and immediately with WP content policies by ceasing to promote a POV that is unsupported by either reliable third party sources or consensus. There is nothing to mediate, and nothing further to discuss."

He has refused to cooperate with dispute resolution, and another user (Cheeser1) is not pleased:

"I am not pleased that this person is not cooperating in dispute resolution."

This dispute needs to be resolved, but the purpose of this statement is for the following to happen:

• Gene Poole needs to cooperate with the dispute resolution process so that a solution can be found.
• Gene Poole needs to stop attacking user's opinions in an argument (particularly the Sealand is a sovereign state opinion), and instead support his own opinions in a debate.
• Gene Poole needs to stop commenting on the contributor.

His history of sockpuppetry and attacking rather than discussing opinions have caused enough problems and this dispute needs to be resolved. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Warlordjohncarter

I remember when the above editor was attempting to demand that Sealand falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:WikiProject European Microstates, despite the fact that that project was never contacted by him to request inclusion in its scope and it does not fall within the project's currently stated scope. He did however demand that it be included as per here. He made similar comments at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Sealand discussion, stating that Sealand falls within the scope of the above project, despite not being mentioned there. He has also made similar categorical statements that Sealand must be at least considered a microstate at Talk:Sealand#Micronation/Microstate. Unfortunately, I have never seen any evidence to support that contention, barring a few passport stamps and a few news articles, and the apparent formal lack of recognition by any countries clearly mitigates against that. I regret to say that the originator of this request seems to me to be a rather absolutist POV pusher. I believe it could reasonably be stated that attempting to introduce statements that Sealand is a microstate based on the scanty evidence available, none of which seems to come from sources which would be considered reliable for these purposes, could be at least possibly reasonably be thought of as vandalism. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved DrKiernan

Sam is correct that Gene has accused Onecanadasquare of vandalism,[72] but seems to have missed Onecanadasquare calling Gene a troll[73].

Fault on both sides, perhaps? Onecanadasquare's insistence that the Principality of Sealand is a sovereign state, when it quite clearly is not, could count as POV OR fringe theory, and, if the committee accepts this case, you may wish to examine this aspect of the dispute. DrKiernan (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

• I'm wavering on this at the moment because it's clearly a longrunning problem with editor misbehaviour, but Gene Poole's labelling good faith communications as vandalism or trolling and rejection of mediation is edging him close to the point at which it becomes obvious that he is unable to work with others. In other words, if Gene Poole makes further disruptive edits, an uninvolved admin should consider warning him, and restrict his editing so as to prevent future disruption, with no need to open an arbitration case. Gene Poole may be able to convince me that there is more to be considered but I'm inclined to reject at the moment. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Extraordinary rendition by the United States

Ccson Ccson (talk) at 20:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Ccson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Swatjester

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Talk:Extraordinary rendition by the United States#World policy council
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-01 Extraordinary rendition by the United States‎
• Wikipedia:RSN#World Policy Council

Statement by Ccson

I have inserted text within the article and cited the World Policy Council as the source for the statements and their opinion. User Swatjester continues to remove the text because he feels the source is unreliable. I have shown the WPC is associated with a university, the WPC seek the advice of experts when needed, and I have consensus from other editors that the source is reliable for their opinion. I attempted cabal mediation, however, the user declined mediation and reverted again.

The opinion presented is the agreement of 9 persons whose background include a Senator, U.S. Ambassadors, U.S. Congressmen, College Presidents, Leaders of Churches and Foundations, and a professor at Ivy league universities.

Each person is highly regarded for their individual opinions and an agreement of the nine should be regarded more highly as a reliable source within wikipedia.

I hope the committee will accept this case and determine that the World Policy Council is a reliable source to cite within Wikipedia.

I wasn't aware that I was "forum shopping". I was following the suggested steps for dispute resolution. I'm surprised that Swatjester says that no time was given to develop this since he refused mediation so I interpreted this action that he didn't want to reach a truce even with the help of a neutral party. His response on the RSN board seems more like a scolding for the editors who decided the WPC was a reliable source. Becauuse Swatjester is an admin, I thought he woud respect the Wikipedia:BRD policy, however, the diffs shows that he restates his objections then reverts. I would also like to note that Swatjester has provided no reliable source for his continuing to revert other than his own personal knowledge of Alpha Phi Alpha and that he lives 3 blocks from Howard University where the World Policy Council was founded and based. I will wait to see if other users post on the RSN and seek the other options suggested such as 3rd opinion and RFC. thanks for your response.--Ccson (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kendrick7

Current use of this source fails WP:SOAP because no third party source is given which attests to the WP:Notability of this group's opinion.

This is a content dispute, and premature prior to filing a WP:RFC

Statement by Swatjester

Content dispute. Excessively rapid escalation with no time to develop. Mountain. Molehill. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

• Decline. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. The Arbitration Committee focuses primarily on user conduct disputes and generally does not decide article-content issues, such as whether a given organization's work-product is sufficiently reliable to be used as a source. The filing party acted responsibly by seeking assistance from the Mediation Cabal, but there are other dispute resolution avenues that can be pursued, including seeking a third opinion or filing an article-content request for comment. Please pursue these avenues toward obtaining consensus on the issue raised. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. This is a fairly routine content dispute and the debate on the reliable sources noticeboard has barely begun. I would advise the filer that, in order to avoid charges of 'forum-shopping', he may want to concentrate on that avenue for the moment. There appears to be no associated editor misconduct. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline as it is very premature. Newyorkbrad and Sam clearly explain what should be done, and how. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject as well stated by Newyorkbrad and Sam Blacketer. FloNight (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline; premature. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Elvis Presley / Onefortyone

Initiated by Steve Pastor (talk) at 16:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Steve Pastor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - (initiating party)
• Rikstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Northmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LaraLove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maria202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jaye9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Onefortyone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Onefortyone[74] Rikstar [75] Northmeister [76] LaraLove [77] Maria202 [78] Jaye9 [79]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Several editors have made heroic attempts to work with OneFortyOne. All editors who have tried to do this have thrown their hands up in frustration, as can be noted by the comments of the editors who have joined in this request.

Statement by Steve Pastor

Comments by the combined editors of the Elvis Presley article should suffice to substantiate the following request

that user OneFortyOne be permanently banned from editing the Elvis Presley article, including the Discussion page. Furthermore I request that OneFortyOne be banned from editing any article with a mention of Elvis Presley, including, but not limited to, the Milton Berle Show, Steve Allen, The Steve Allen Show, Ed Sullivan, and The Ed Sullivan Show articles.

This has been a long term pernicious problem. As Rikstar has written, 141 "knows how to play the edit warring game without getting into obvious trouble, his posts beg to be answered ... and this has been as tiresome as it has been unproductive". It should be noted that 141 brings up the same previously rejected arguments and material over and over again.

OneForty One has been banned previously. You may wish to review the following pages: [80], [81], [82].

The following are remarks are from on the Discussion page of the Elvis Presley article:

Disruptive editing. 141 continues to edit this article unilaterally, making little or no effort to co-operate with others. 141 was asked to leave my last edits for others to consider and comment on. He did not. 141 was asked to justify his accusations of fan bias in later sections on these pages first. He did not, and has gone ahead and made changes. It was explained in detail above that 141's edits regarding guitar playing didn't work and that the citation was incomplete. He reverted the changes I subsequently made and it remains a poor read and poorly cited. 141 has been asked if his intention is to make this an article of GA or FA status: no comment. 141 is refusing to allow any of his precious edits to be removed, inspite of article length, and the good will of others in removing or allowing the removal of their own contributions. Rikstar 12:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

We've approached a point where regardless of efforts to include onefortyones edits within the summary style of Wikipedia, and despite concessions to him; this editor continues to spoil any effort to bring improvement to the article so that it may become among the best at Wikipedia and receive feature status. Numerous editors thus far including yourself and tireless Rikstar have improve this article substantially. I would hate to see it all ruined by one editor who is not getting the point of our efforts nor Wikipedia WP:Point. It is time this matter is resolved by outside parties. --Northmeister 01:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This article has been degraded enough. Too much time and hard work has gone to waste. This article has great potential to be an FA. Currently, it can't even keep GA. It's time to fix the issues that ail this article. Lara❤Love 17:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It pains me to see what one user, 141, has done to this article. I watched many others work very hard on getting it to FA status. Maria202 (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So much of the "current controversy" occurs because one particular user (guess) keeps trying to own this article, and the Talk Page. I'm in favor of taking it to arbitration, or even having him banned for his behavior in and about this article and Talk. It's a shame that this user has made such a mess of this page with his obsessive blather that the page is sinking into a swamp of user despair. Hoserjoe (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC) To Steve Pastor add me to your list, please.--Jaye9 (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I will add my own comments:

If I thought it would make a difference to 141, I would go through the archeives and repeat the arguments that have been made by other editors as to why this material does not belong in this article. Since 141 has been unable or unwilling to understand, or accept any other viewpoints on this subject, that exercise would be pointless. Steve Pastor (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Rikstar has by far put the most effort into this article, and provided these additional comments.

I posted my worries about improving the Elvis article on Dec. 8, 2006 - my comment is still in the summary of FA/GA submissions. My concerns actually referred to the involvement of one user, Onefortyone, though I did not mention him by name. His history already indicated that he had an alarming and persistent preoccupation with negative and sexually biased material, something not reflected in other encyclopedic articles. I noted he had at times been banned/committed violations.

By May, 2007, I was being actively encouraged by user Northmeister to edit (he has since given up) because of other editors' concerns about the state of the article; the lack of progress seemed tied to article length, trivia, fan bias, structure and to 141's continued involvement. In the last 6 months, I have tried to improve the article but I have felt regularly frustrated by 141's talk, edits, reverts, ignoring consensus and general tactics that lead me to seriously believe he has some kind of agenda to be disruptive and/or to have his POV included at any cost. His posting of a list of miswritten lyrics implying Presley was gay was as perplexing as it was disturbing. Responding to his claims, new submissions, etc. has taken up more time and effort than with any other user, and the payback has been negligible.

141 is shrewd: he knows how to play the edit warring game without getting into obvious trouble, his posts beg to be answered if only not to give his claims undue weight, and this has been as tiresome as it has been unproductive. I hope that my own posts on the talk pages will give sufficient details about the specific objections I and others have had to 141's editing behavior, and that they will be seen as fair and as objective as possible. It should be noted however that the frustration over many hours of discussion/arguing with 141 alone has pushed me to the point where I have felt physically repelled at the thought of doing any more editing, period. I have stretched my patience to its limit trying to negotiate with/accommodate/tolerate 141, to ignore his rehashing of stale tactics/arguments. However, the evidence is there, I think, that this and other articles will never improve as they should with his continued involvement. I also believe he has scared off too many people who could help make this a featured article. And I may well be another casuality. Rikstar (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional statement by Onefortyone concerning false claims by Steve Pastor

Here are some false claims made by Steve Pastor in his statement above:

• "141 continues to edit this article unilaterally, making little or no effort to co-operate with others."

This is not true, as the discussion page shows and my efforts in order to shorten longer versions of specific paragraphs previously written by me prove. See [83], [84]. See also [85]and [86], [87], [88]. However, if some users removed entire, well-sourced paragraphs, I did not agree, which I hope is understandable. In these cases I tried to reinclude the deleted material in the original form or, alternatively, in revised, abridged form. It should be noted that others also reverted such edits. See [89], [90], [91], [92].

• "141 was asked to justify his accusations of fan bias in later sections on these pages first. He did not..."

I did. See [93], [94], [95], [96], etc.

• "It was explained in detail above that 141's edits regarding guitar playing didn't work and that the citation was incomplete. He reverted the changes I subsequently made and it remains a poor read and poorly cited."

For my response, see [97], where I have demonstrated that Steve Pastor's edits regarding guitar playing "suggests that Elvis's music was accepted from the beginning by the majority of listeners. But this isn't true," as the sources I have provided show. The said passage has been reworded by me and Rikstar several weeks ago and it is now a good read.

• "141 has been asked if his intention is to make this an article of GA or FA status: no comment."

This is also a false claim. For my statements that I am willing to help to make Elvis Presley an article of GA or FA status, see [98], [99], [100].

• 141 is refusing to allow any of his precious edits to be removed.

This is not true. For example, when Rikstar shortened this section, I did not revert it to the previous, much longer version written by me. In many other cases, I accepted edits by others, as the contribution history of the Elvis article clearly shows.

So much for Steve Pastor's false claims.

Statement by Onefortyone

It's interesting that User:Steve Pastor requests a ban in view of his biased removals of well-sourced, critical information and inclusion of fan-oriented material in Elvis-related articles.

To my mind, the whole thing is simply a content dispute concerning Elvis-related topics. Pastor seems to be primarily interested in removing critical information and including material mentioning "that some of Elvis's greatest assets were his youth and good looks." And he adds, "I have several sources (my favorite is a BB King statement, which can be seen on dvd) that he tought Elvis would be popular whether he could sing or not." See [101].

It should be further noted that most editors who have joined in Steve Pastor's request are acknowledged fans of Elvis Presley.

• Northmeister says on his user page, "I've been a lifelong fan of Elvis Presley even though he passed away in my very early years." See [102].
• LaraLove says, "I am an Elvis fan, but of his music and look, not so much his life and how he lived it." See [103].
• Jaye9 says, "Oh by the way 141, I am an Elvis Fan..." See [104]. This could suggest that they may be interested in excluding more critical material from the Elvis article.

See also these four edits by Pastor of May 2007: [105], [106], [107], [108]. Furthermore, which contributions to The Ed Sullivan Show are more encyclopedic? This one and this one by Steve Pastor or that one and that one by Onefortyone?

In the past, User:Steve Pastor repeatedly removed content he didn't like from the Elvis page. See [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], etc. etc.

What is more, Steve Pastor frequently includes references to specific fan sites and DVDs in Wikipedia articles. See [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134]. Other users had also a suspicion that the hyperlinks Steve Pastor prefers seem "designed primarily to sell CDs." See [135], [136]. This inclusion of references to Elvis fan sites, DVDs etc., which is not in line with Wikipedia policies, may indicate that Pastor is part of an Elvis fan group and may therefore be an editor who has a conflict of interest.

Concerning the well-sourced material I have used for my contributions, Steve Pastor writes:

• I think we need to keep in mind that many of the people who wrote about Elvis were writing books. Much of what they write is opinion and doesn't need to be repeated here. See [137].
• We no longer have to rely on second hand accounts of many things. We also no longer have to rely on someone elses account of what the music sounds like with the availablity of samples. See [138]

Third-party users seem to agree with my edits:

• "The article seems a bit too fan influenced. I wish that some of the input by Onefortyone (biased though he may or may not be) got more air time. Elvis was wonderful, but an encyclopedia article, especially a wikipedia article should be brutally honest." See [139].
• "Elvis was a controversial figure. His sexuality, drug taking, divorce, eating disorders etc etc all attract differing points of view. To some he was a god; to others a fat bloke who died on the toilet. For many aspects of his life there is no definitive answer. ... To attempt to compromise, this article needs to show both sides with suitable references and let the reader decide." See [140].
• "Onefortyone presents well documented information on a lot of negative aspects of Elvis` life and it gets continually edited out. Let the truth be heard, you inane fanboys." See [141].

Here are some other commentaries concerning my contributions:

• ... If the Presley article is so POV and controlled by biased Elvis fans as you claim, then feel free to make all the edits you like. They seem to wasted just appearing on the talk page. You are obviously intelligent, erudite and can write excellent prose that is unimpeachably cited. Other people are freely editing the article, so why don't you? See [142]
• I like your recent compromise. It shows we can work together and that you understand my concerns. I moved the later material to 1968 comeback to fit better in the article. In this way we can work towards your concerns. See [143]
• A Resilient Barnstar for learning and improving from criticisms, and not letting mistakes or blunders impede your growth as Wikipedian. I'm really impressed. See [144]

As far as I can see, I am the only editor who frequently cites his sources, among them mainstream Elvis biographies, essays by reputed Elvis experts, books by people who knew Elvis and peer-reviewed studies published by university presses. For the many sources I have used for my contributions, see [145].

Significantly, my opponents now endeavor to remove exactly the same sourced information that my former opponents had removed, who are banned by former arbcom decisions. To my mind, Steve Pastor and some new sockpuppets of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabbadoo are still edit warring with me, as multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes alias User:DW and banned User:Lochdale did in the past. Onefortyone (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Jehochman

You have claimed, "Onefortyone appears to have been in persistent conflict since at least May 2007..." and "I believe Onefortyone has significantly impeded development of the article, based on the statements of involved parties." If you look at the contribution history, you will find that I didn't touch the Elvis article between May 19 and August 27, 2007. As there was a permanent edit war in the past, I didn't revert any removals by other users for months in order to show good faith. This means that there was plenty of time for my opponents to develop the article, and they changed a lot. However, there was a discussion on the talk page, as my opponents frequently removed sourced content that was not in line with their personal opinion. In August, Rikstar said on the talk page, "...feel free to make all the edits you like. They seem to wasted just appearing on the talk page. You are obviously intelligent, erudite and can write excellent prose that is unimpeachably cited. Other people are freely editing the article, so why don't you?" See [146]. So I returned. The edit war started again with this edit by Northmeister, who, as usual, removed well-sourced information from the article page. Furthermore, if you look at the Elvis article in its present state from a neutral point of view, is it really such a mess as my opponents claim? Onefortyone (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to LaraLove

I think I have shown on the talk page that the claims by Jaye9, perhaps a newly created sockpuppet of one of my former opponents (see his contribution history), are unjustified. Jaye9 even made false claims concerning Elvis's father, Vernon, and his stepmother, Dee Presley, on the talk page similar to the claims made by banned user Lochdale, who even added this false information to the Elvis article. See [147] and my reply here. Onefortyone (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

I direct the Committee's attention to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive249#Still an unresolved problem. I am concerned that the current remedies against Onefortyone may be entirely insufficient to deal with the level of disruption that seems to be going on. I urge the committee to accept this matter for review to help resolve a long running controversy that the community has been unable to handle. Onefortyone appears to have been in persistent conflict since at least May 2007 and probably much longer. I remain concerned about the possibility of disruptive sock puppetry, and of false allegations against other editors. Jehochman ^Talk 23:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel comfortable applying the existing probation remedy because it is too narrowly written. I believe Onefortyone has significantly impeded development of the article, based on the statements of involved parties. Additionally, Sam Blacketer has stated that he thinks Onefortyone's editing has been acceptable. It seems that there is a conflict amongst administrators how to handle this problem. The status quo since at least May 2007 has been paralysis resulting in valued contributors becoming frustrated to the point that they abandon the article. I think an expedited review of editing since the last case and a decision to remove, alter, or sustain the existing remedy would be helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 22:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LaraLove

In the months I have been working on this article, I have found Onefortyone to be a consistent obstacle in article improvement. My involvement started after the article was improperly promoted to GA status in August 2007. It's my opinion that every attempt to bring this article to GA standards is halted by Onefortyone. Evidence has been shown on Talk:Elvis Presley that brings Onefortyone's sourced additions into question, as it appears as though he has selectively pulled information in order to push his preferred POV. He refuses to allow information to be removed in order to bring the article down to a manageable, readable length, which is why his latest additions remain. I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Elvis Presley in hopes of being able to get more attention on the article, however, it's no further along now than it was when it began a month and a half ago. Something has to change in this situation because no progress is being made and every other editor that consistently works on this article is ready to give up, which is not in the best interest of the project. Lara❤Love 18:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Egghead06

There is so much about the life of Elvis that is unknown. Since his death much rumour and gossip have grown-up around the man. How can anyone give a definitive view? They can't! What they can do is offer data which differs from the norm. As long as this is given with good references this can only help to provide a fuller picture. How can you ban someone who does that? There appears to be a drive here to only have one view point - put them all as long as they are referenced and let the reader decide. There also appears to be a drive to keep the article short so as to acheive some internal star or pat-on-the back. Brevity and accuracy do not always go hand-in-hand. This is not an encyclopedia for goldfish. Surely people can keep their span of attention long enough to grasp all the possibilities. This user may not toe the line but banning is too heavy handed. --Egghead06 (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

There appear to be two reports in the enforcement archives, see first and second and the enforcement log. Thatcher 17:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The situation is troubling, but I am not certain that a new case is necessary. It appears that the problem could be addressed through enforcement of the existing remedies through a report to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. That page is used where an editor fails to abide by a rule in a prior arbitration case(s) and enforcement of remedies under the prior ruling are sufficient to resolve the issue. Could the parties kindly address whether the problem could be addressed more efficiently in this way. If arbitration enforcement is insufficient to address the problem then I lean toward acceptance, subject to Onefortyone's statement and possibly as a Review of editing since the prior decisions rather than a whole new case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Onefortyone is a restrained editor of the actual article on Elvis Presley and his more recent additions appear to be reliably sourced and have stayed in the article. While the talk page can get heated at times, I am very reluctant to sanction an editor merely because they happen to be in a minority. Discussion and debate is working. The current sanctions are in my view sufficient. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline for now as per Newyorkbrad. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not want to reject a case that can not be handled by past remedies or the community, but I do not see evidence for a case now. I need to see more specific evidence that we need to be involved before I can accept. FloNight (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I would rather have a motion on a previous case than open a whole new case about essentially the same issues. I would like to see evidence of occasions where 141 has been disruptive in ways that are not covered by the existing sanctions from previous cases, and suggestions for ways those sanctions could be improved to better handle the situation. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Anti-Dominicanism

Initiated by Zenwhat (talk) at 19:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Zenwhat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• UnclePaco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 67.101.248.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• XLR8TION (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nishkid64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[148] [149] [150] [151]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

XLR8TION (talk · contribs) was banned for a week by Nishkid64 (talk · contribs) [152] Also, see the see Wikiquette alert. [153]

Statement by Zenwhat

To begin with, I was completely outside of this dispute but happened to come across it while surfing Special:Random. User:UnclePaco has been pushing anti-Dominican and anti-black racism, including fringe theories about Dominican racial heritage. These include denying that modern Dominicans have any genetic relation to the native tribes that preceded them [154], claiming that such native tribes were wiped out entirely [155], and Dominicans today are mostly of "African roots," not of Hispanic or Native origin. [156] And he characterized a Dominican politician as supporting "reverse discrimination" by appealing to black Dominicans and that black Dominicans maintain "political supremacy." [157] Recently, he has attempted to associate the Dominican Day Parade with crime. [158] [159] And he has used homophobic epithets. [160] He posted a video critical of black Dominican basketball player, Felipe López [161] and black NBA star, Amare Stoudemire, [162] whose status as a Dominican cannot be confirmed, but he is from Florida. [163]

Aside from the above obvious POV-pushing, this is an overall pattern of behavior, where some of his edits seem to be made with the subtle intent of supporting racism, such as by uploading the mugshot of the black dominican involved in the alleged plot to attack St. John's University [164] and trying to create an article to push POV about that event. [165]

He has engaged in wikilawyering in order to push his POV. Recently, he reported XLR8TION (talk · contribs) for violating the 3RR on Dominican Day Parade [166] and for bad ettiquette. [167] by being accused of speaking English as a second language. [168]

After noting on WP:ANI that his 3RR report was unfounded, an anonymous user suddenly made baseless accusations against me, of harassment and stalking. [169] An RFCU will likely confirm this is UnclePaco, who has been making edits while not logged in, possibly in order to hide his identity. [170]

He's also engaged in edit wars over long periods of time, attempting to insert two objectionable photos of his into various articles on Dominicans. See his contributions list to see the reverts.

XLR8TION's accusation that UnclePaco speaks english as as second language was rude, however, given UnclePaco's name and the fact that he does often use broken english [171], this is a reasonable criticism. A one-week ban seems particularly extreme and XLR8TION's violation of the 3RR doesn't apply, because UnclePaco is editing in bad faith.

I request that XLR8TION be unblocked, that UnclePaco be blocked for a time determined by the arbitrator, and that he be investigated for sockpuppetry, per the edits by the anonymous user above.

Although there's been no RFCU, It's pretty much been confirmed that the anonymous IP isn't UnclePaco, UnclePaco's ban is now over, and I wasn't aware of XLR8TION'S block log, so these comments no longer apply. However, I do request that some arbitration ruling be made about the "violence section," on Dominican Day Parade, because of its contentious edit history, as admin Sam Blacketer suggests below. Zenwhat (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Zenwhat

XLR8TION reverted other editors over the "white nationalism" reference and claimed he was being accuse of racism. He also told B to stop making ignorant accusations. This matter could have easily been resolved, had XLR8TION asked the other editors what they were referring to. There was no need to make personal attacks or continuing the edit war. Also, XLR8TION may not have a history of being a "white nationalist troll", but he certainly has a history of violating 3RR, making personal attacks and being uncivil on Dominican-related articles. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishkid64

UnclePaco filed a 3RR report against XLR8TION on January 1, 2008. The two users had been edit warring over this edit by UnclePaco, which highlights the incidents of crime at the Dominican Day Parade in 2007. B found that both users had violated WP:3RR on Dominican Day Parade, but they were currently engaging in discussion in the talk page, so he felt blocks were not necessary. Hours later, UnclePaco left a message at the 3RR report board about personal attacks from XLR8TION. XLR8TION's comment on Talk:Dominican Day Parade were uncivil, as he justified removing UnclePaco's additions because they brought the article to a "standard that is low and unreliable." Next, he claimed that from UnclePaco's edits, it was apparent that English was not his first language. XLR8TION states that since he is a native speaker, it is his "duty to maintain proper grammar and structure in articles." Afterwards, XLR8TION and UnclePaco continued to edit war on Dominican Day Parade, and XLR8TION began an edit war on Puerto Rican Day Parade, which included admin B (talk · contribs) and IP users. On Puerto Rican Day Parade, XLR8TION added a reference from a [www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/puerto-ricans-133236p6.html] "white nationalist" message board. 67.87.197.9 removed the reference. XLR8TION reverted the edit with the edit summary: "Revert, there is nothing mentions White power here". Another IP removed the reference, and XLR8TION reverted the editor, stating that the removal of sourced information can be labeled as vandalism. Admin B (talk · contribs) came to the article and removed the reference with the edit summary: "Completely unacceptable source (white power message board), no position on the rest of it." XLR8TION promptly reverted B, and left a threatening edit summary, in which he told B to "refrain from ignorant accusations" and that his next revert would lead to "corrective action." B reverted and left an edit summary: "You're joking, right? It's a message board (bad) with a big logo in the upper left corner that says 'white proud'" Meanwhile, on Dominican Day Parade, an IP re-inserted the material previously added by UnclePaco. XLR8TION promptly reverted. Shortly after, B went back to the 3RR board, where he requested a review of the previous 3RR report by an uninvolved administrator. Two minutes later, XLR8TION reverted B's edit on Puerto Rican Day Parade and told him to once again refrain from ignorant language.

I saw the report and evaluated XLR8TION's contributions. As I was reviewing his contributions, he made an edit at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, in which he accused B of making racist and uncivil accusations of "white power" against him. 15 minutes later, I blocked XLR8TION for one week, due to edit warring, incivility and personal attacks. Within the hour, I received an e-mail from XLR8TION about the block. He felt the block was unfair, and claimed that he was being accused of "white power" propaganda. We sent over a dozen e-mails back and forth, in which I explained the reasons for the block. He claimed he did not know the message board he was adding as a reference was a "white nationalist" website. He stated that his firewall at blocked parts of the page, so he did not see the banners indicative of the site's purpose. He believed that this firewall should be taken into consideration. He repeatedly asked what I was going to do about UnclePaco. He advocated for a block, but I felt it was unnecessary. Finally, I told him I would look into the matter. When I went back on Wikipedia hours later, I saw UnclePaco was edit warring on St. John's University (New York City)‎ and Dominican Day Parade. I then blocked UnclePaco for 24 hours due to edit warring.

A few points of clarification from ZenWhat's statement and the entire case, itself:

• No dispute resolution
• I blocked, not banned XLR8TION for one week. I have been in contact via e-mail regarding his block
• Sandstein declined the unblock request on XLR8TION's talk page
• XLR8TION's 3RR report was not unfounded; B (talk · contribs) found both UnclePaco and XLR8TION had violated WP:3RR, but he chose not to block the users at the time

Reply to Nishkid64

I received an email from XLR8TION, where he claimed that he did not realize Stormfront.org was a "white power" site, and feels embarrassed about the matter, because his ISP has a firewall his blocks certain objectionable content (I assume he means a word filter, he could explain better than I). A copy of the email can be found here: [172] Because he does NOT have an history of contributions supporting white nationalism, per WP:Assume Good Faith, I see no reason to disbelieve him. Although I admit the edit war was a bad idea and I would like to hear more specifics about his ISP's firewall. Zenwhat (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I received e-mails from XLR8TION as well. The issue is not about "white nationalism", but about the edit warring and personal attacks he made on Puerto Rican Day Parade. A firewall is no excuse for inappropriate incivility and edit warring. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by UnclePaco replied on January 7, 2008

• Amare Stoudamire isn't hispanic at all. He's black. I posted an article that spoke about him and summarized it. [173]. What you wrote is a strech of the imagination and simply trying to find things to bury me on.
• The felipe lopez article. [174] This was his last college game. How is it critical of him? http://youtube.com/watch?v=vdmf9l6b8Bc Again, trying to find something to bury me on. Why don't you look at the video!
• the alleged homophobia comment. In the context of the article we discussed how allegations with no substance can still make it into articles, such as [Rock Hudsons] personal life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_Hudson#Personal_life[175]. We discussed the Patriot Act, Habeous Corpus, Guilty until proven innocent (i.e. Rock Hudsons personal life). [176] To which he stated Gay not being a crime, and that depends on what nation you're at. AT no point did I make homophobic remarks. If someone chooses to live a certain lifestyle that is on them. I'm indifferent.
• Dominican Day Parade crime section. I created a section similiar to two other articles in New York about parades that had similiar sections. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Day_Carnival#Violence and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_Day_Parade#Controversy . I placed in verified information NY Times, NY Sun, NY Daily News, NY Post to illustrate this. Why is it ok for the Labor Day Carnival to have a violence section and the Puerto Rican Day Parade to have a controversy section, but the Dominican Day Parade not to have one? I have brought this up on talk pages. [177]
• The black supremacy section, well I did reinsert the trivia section [178]. I simply didn't read the whole thing. It was originally inserted in Dec 2005 way before I became a member. I saw it was deleted and saw the first couple of sentences and it looked good to me. [179]
• Dominican racial identity is simply up for debate. [180] There are numerous articles that state that DR is simply african and spaniard. Also that the native indians died off.

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/amholocaust-5.html http://pine3.info/Barbecue%20Heritage.htm http://forests.org/archive/general/columbus.htm http://forests.org/archive/general/columbus.htm http://www.websteruniv.edu/~corbetre/haiti/history/precolumbian/tainospring.htm http://www.delhey.de/content-00/en/reports/domrep.htm www.dominican-rep.com/history.html http://www.icumedia.com/santodomingo/sd-history.shtml http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096409671 http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/IndianGenocide.html to easily name a few.

• Xlr8tion was blocked for posting sources from white power websites before anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Puerto_Rican_Day_Parade&diff=182022544&oldid=182019533
• My being accused of being 67.101.248.187 by Admin B and Zenwhat can be resolved rather quickly. Just do a quick ip check. It'll show that it isn't me. I won't even ask for an apology on that one. Admint B noted here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WQA#B.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29 that there have been previous accusations of using IP address by users and made teh statement "His claim that I am the IP users is nonsense - a quick whois reveals that two of them are from New York and one is from Florida. Anyone who knows me knows that I hail from Virginia Tech."UnclePaco (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• ok this one was almost comical. a black dominican who wanted to attack st john's university. http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/IndianGenocide.html this was originally an article that i had created that went up for deletion review and ended up being userfied [181] . The alleged black dominican is actually nigerian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mugshot.JPG and this was an actual event not at St. John's University but at Southern Illinois University. Now at what point did i say dominican anywhere in the article? If anyone is interested in learning more about that particular incident feel free to read here. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-25-ill-campus-threat_N.htm .

There does seem to be some kind of relationship between Zenwhat and XLR8TION. For a period they seem to have a similiar writing style and utilization of edits or accusation that has no true source. Look at the Felipe Lopez article and what I was accused of for example. How could that even remotely be considered to be anti-dominican or racism. Zenwhat below states that he wants us to Assume Good Faith for XlR8TION (for posting racist message boards, and stating that english isn't my first language ; which I might add is someting that individuals who are on those sites tend to do (white message boards). They tell people to speak english or mock peoples english skills), but is going for the throat with me with outlandish accusation. UnclePaco (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:B

I have interacted with all of these editors over the last few days on two separate occasions while patrolling WP:AN3 and I will make an effort to give some background.

UnclePaco (talk · contribs) reported XLR8TION (talk · contribs) for 3RR on Dominican Day Parade. (See [182] for the thread.) Both users were in violation, but appeared to be talking it out on the talk page. I felt it would be appropriate to simply warn them, rather than block them. After that, XLR8TION resumed edit warring and repeatedly adding a link to a thread on a white power message board [183] to Puerto Rican Day Parade. I removed it for obvious reasons and he reverted the removal twice. I realized my prior conclusion that the disruptive editing had stopped was incorrect and, though I would have been justified in making the block myself, in order to maintain transparency I posted a request at 3RR that another admin review my previous decision and consider making a block. Nishkid64 decided, based on the continued edit warring, incivility, and inappropriate external link, to block XLR8TION for one week. I concur with this block. During the interim before the block was made, XLR8TION opened a frivolous WQA alert concerning my removal of the inappropriate external link.[184]

UnclePaco has repeatedly added to Puerto Rican Day Parade the comment "with Manuel Vargas being deemed the ring leader." [185] That statement is supported by the source, although not knowing the issue, I can't see a reason why this matters - no foundation is given - who is he? He has also edit warred on Dominican Day Parade. Again, I don't know anything about the issue to conclude a right or wrong, only that it is a disruption. 67.101.248.187 (talk · contribs) seems to almost certainly be UnclePaco editing while logged out. UnclePaco says on his talk page that he isn't the IP, and it's completely moot to everything else I typed - I just assumed it was him based on seeing the same edit summary in the same article, this wasn't meant to be an accusation. --B (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously feel that overturning XLR8TION's block would be a bad idea. UnclePaco's editing is somewhat tenuous and if it continues, it can be dealt with, but arbitration is premature. --B (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the above, I have serious doubts about the technical likelihood of this selective firewall. "Stormfront White Nationalist Community" is the top level forum of this message board and it is printed in plain text (not an image) in the same HTML file (not overlayed by a javascript). The "White Pride World Wide" image is on the same domain (www.stormfront.org) as the rest of the site. The alt text is "Return to Stormfront White Pride World Wide Main Page". This particular sub-forum is the "América Latina White Nationalists in Latin America." There is enough racist nonsense on that message board that I feel sick in my stomach from just looking at it. I am often told that I have a poor imagination, but I have a difficult time imagining someone taking more than a cursory glance at this site and not realizing what it is. --B (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The blatant obviousness of Stormfront as a white nationalist site is precisely why I believe XLR8TION's claim that Stormfront's material is partially blocked. Even a legitimately white nationalist troll is probably not going to be stupid enough to cite Stormfront.org, with "White Nationalist" plastered all over it, then claim in his edit summaries that it isn't white nationalist, and engage in an edit war over it. It's not effective trolling. It's the same reason there isn't a "White Nationalist" usebox. Per WP:Assume good faith and because XLR8TION doesn't have a suspicious edit history, as all white nationalist trolls should, I think we should reserve judgment on the issue until XLR8TION can explain his claim more in detail and name his specific ISP. If he does both, we could easily confirm or deny the claim. XLR8TION seems genuinely concerned that his reputation has been severely tarnished by being branded a racist. If this matter isn't cleared up, it may affect the credibility of his future edits. It wouldn't require hardly any effort to confirm or deny and, if it turns out that I'm right, it's a particularly important detail for the arbitrators to consider. Zenwhat (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please move your comments to your section. If you want, you can make subsections like ===Reply to B=== or something, but you should not edit another person's section. If the site was "partially blocked", exactly what part wasn't blocked? It doesn't make any sense. There's no mindreading software that can selectively cleanse the page of the racist material and leave whatever it was being used to source. But if he is really seeing something else, he can take a screenshot of what he is seeing (alt+printscreen), paste it into Microsoft Paint, save it, and upload it to somewhere like flickr or webshots and post the link here. --B (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Cheeser1

As one of the primary responders to the WQA complaint, I would like to point out a few things. The block was not for this incident, but for something else that occurred. Check the block log and the WQA history:

Block Log: 21:41, 3 January 2008 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) blocked "XLR8TION (Talk | contribs)"

WP:WQA: 22:50, 3 January 2008 UnclePaco (Talk | contribs) (185,592 bytes) (XLR8TION) (undo)

As for the WP:SKILL issue, it doesn't matter if UnclePaco is the worst editor in history, WP:SKILL still applies. And "but he really is bad at English" is not a valid defense, nor is "but he's not a good contributor." There may be merit in considering UnclePaco's contributions, because they were certainly dubious. But XLR8TION is responsible for his actions and they can't be excused based on the quality of UnclePaco's contributions. He has a history of being warned and blocked for incivility, personal attacks, and edit warring in this exact way (read: he should know better), and his block seems to be self-evidently appropriate (several instances of totally incivility during edit wars). His appeal was declined because his defense was the same one coming up here: UnclePaco is bad at English, and he's a bad contributor. That's not relevant, especially since he's being blocked for an incident prior to it. The prior incident, by the way, was also reported at the WQA here, where you can confirm that the block is not related to the incident involving UnclePaco - not that another round of incivility doesn't support the validity of the block anyway. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: After seeing a more thorough account, it seems that all of these incidents are loosely related. However, there is still a misunderstanding that UnclePaco reported XLR8TION at the WQA, and then he gets blocked, and then UnclePaco is the winner. There was a similar issue when XLR8TION asserted that UnclePaco had not been warned for 3RR, when he had (and has, in fact, been blocked too). Like I said, UnclePaco's POV and content issues merit examination (although perhaps not here). Unblocking XLR8TION is not related to that, and does not seem warranted. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more consideration: As for the edit warring over the Stormfront message board "reference" - XLR8TION's explanation about some sort of partial firewall seems dubious, but I'm willing to accept that as an explanation for his having used such an obviously inappropriate source. Once. When someone says "your source is a white nationalist messageboard, and is thus inappropriate," then you just found out what all your "partial firewall" or whatever was blocking on that page (although I can't imagine it wasn't obviously some kind of forum, which should be enough). Edit warring and breaching WP:CIVIL in order to reinsert a source that he has admitted to at least being unable to assess the reliability of - that's not appropriate and is not excused by anything others might have done. I think XLR8TION even jumped to the odd conclusion that "the reference you are citing is a white power messageboard" means the same as "you are a white supremacist." --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by trying to be funny Kendrick7

Looks like a Jesuit plot to me. Oh, wait -- wrong anti-Dominicanism. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/6/0/0)

• Decline. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution; there is no evidence that earlier steps have been attempted. If there is serious concern about the one-week block, the matter can be raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for input by other admins and editors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject, per Newyorkbrad. Kirill 23:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject, premature. I agree with Brad's comments. I would also add that this seems suitable for mediation, should other methods of dispute resolution not be productive. --bainer (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Nothing in this request suggests that WP:RFC or WP:ANI would not be better venues at this point in time. Or indeed, mediation. Either content or conduct RFC would perhaps be especially valuable; conduct RFC by both parties particulary since it has a tendency to clarify conflicting claims about behavior and approaches such as described above, and users can often get good commonsense on the conflict issues and how the community and its norms see them. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I would myself accept this case because the edit history of Dominican Republic does show a long history of disputes involving misconduct and because the accusations made in the case are serious enough to merit arbitration even though previous dispute resolution has been minimal. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject, I think that editor conduct issue exist but I am hopeful that through further community action that an arbitration case can be avoided. FloNight (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline as premature. Paul August ☎ 18:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Place requests for clarification on matters related to past Arbitration cases 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.

To ban or not to ban

There's been an incident following a recently closed Arb case :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Tenebrae

The party received a warning, but for future considerations, would such an incident be subject to temporary banning under Remedy 3?

Disruptive editing 3) Any uninvolved administrator may ban Skyelarke or Tenebrae from editing John Buscema or any related article or page for a reasonable period of time, either before or after three months have expired, if either engages in any form of disruptive editing, edit-warring, or editing against an established consensus.

--Skyelarke (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An uninvolved administrator may ban either participant in the case from any article or page related to John Buscema for the reasons stated. The words "or page" were added to the remedy to make it clear that talk pages are included. Talk pages are for discussion, even for expressing disagreement with other editors, so banning someone from a talkpage normally should not be necessary, but if there is disruption from either party it can be done in the discretion of the administrator handling arbitration enforcement. I will add that I am very, very disappointed to see the two of you sniping at each other again so soon after the case was resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanky for reply, Newyorkbrad - Hopefully, it's an isolated impulsive reaction following case closure - things should hopefully cool down once parties have taken the time to review and integrate the arbcom case decision a little better.

Thanks also, for your double-duty efforts (clerk and arbitrator) on the case, and best of luck with your new arbitration appointment.

Cheers,

--Skyelarke (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin actions don't generally start with the most severe remedy, and blocks don't normally start at the longest length. It's normally the other way around; the exceptions are things like vandal only accounts. In this case there was also the issue of what the arb case applied to. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for procedural clarificaton re: Digwuren general restriction

The Digwuren general restriction states that Any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator and then goes on to describe the terms of the restriction. Some questions have been raised, however, as to whether an administrator should apply this restriction to a first-time offender who has not yet been made aware of the existence of this special clause relating to EE pages, or whether it would be more appropriate to warn the alleged offender first.

The question arose in relation to my own case whereby I have been placed under the restriction for making a single comment that one administrator, User:Thatcher, construed as "disparaging editors by their status in a group" and a "bad faith assumption" on my part (both of which charges I repudiate). Two users, User:Geogre and User:Anynobody, have also appeared to question Thatcher's judgement in this case in regards to whether the sanction should have been immediately applied to a first-time (alleged) offender like myself with no prior knowledge of the restriction.

So I think it would be appropriate for the arbcom to clarify this matter, if not in relation to my own case specifically, then at least in regards to the general case. The discussion, BTW, can be read at Thatcher's talk page under the headings Digwuren restriction notice and No. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for extension of restrictions at DreamGuy 2

I am requesting an extension of sanctions against DreamGuy, to add restrictions on abusive sockpuppetry and edit-warring, along with the civility restrictions from the October 2007 ArbCom case.

DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been systematically using anon sockpuppets in an abusive manner, to avoid scrutiny and sanctions. This is a violation of WP:SOCK: It is a violation of this policy to create alternate accounts — or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account — in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.

It is therefore my request that the sanctions should be extended to cover:

• Abusive sockpuppetry, meaning that the editing restriction should be extended to state that DreamGuy is to make all of his edits under the DreamGuy account.

• Edit-warring. During various incidents since the October 2007 ruling, there have been multiple examples of DreamGuy edit-warring (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DreamGuy), but a block was not issued, because the ArbCom sanctions did not specifically include edit-warring. I would therefore like to see the sanctions extended to cover this, such as to put him on a limit of one revert per article per day.

For further details, please see: User:Elonka/DreamGuy report

--Elonka 01:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the level of IP usage by DreamGuy, I would suggest that remedies are extended, limiting DreamGuy to using only his one account and no editing through IP's - his edits often go undetected for a while and make blocks punitive. Likewise I see edit warring from the account and a motion to include edit warring looks to be a good idea. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this, just so long as the restrictions specifically state that he is not to edit from IPs as well. Wizardman 02:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did something happen recently? It's difficult to tell from the above. If not, why fix what isn't broken? El_C 03:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see how he violated his restrictions, specifically. Eloka's report suffers from inaccuracies. And isn't there a priori bad blood? El_C 03:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, yet another Checkuser was filed by yet another user, which alerted me to the fact that DreamGuy is using yet another anon to avoid sanctions, despite multiple admins telling him in the past that he has to stop doing this. DreamGuy keeps repeating, "There's no rule that says you have to login." And yet, WP:SOCK says exactly that, that you do have to login if other editors have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. DreamGuy didn't just "forget" to login once or twice, he's been avoiding his DreamGuy account, and has been systematically using an anon for weeks. See my report at User:Elonka/DreamGuy report for details. --Elonka 03:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That dosen't answer the question about bad blood, so I'll pose for the third time. As for the login-in requirement — so long as there's no troubles from those ips, I don't think that sockpuppet clause can be invoked, as much as some may take an interest in his contributions, he has a right to edit without login-in. I asked you about these troubles and you said: "bad faith and uncivil comments. Just look at his contribs." I don't really have time to review these in their totality, so again, please provide diffs. Thx. El_C 03:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's using IP's to evade transparency in his editing. He's under arbitration restrictions, and by using IP's, he stops the possibility of having his contribs looked at. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand El C's point. Is he saying that an editor engaged in a revert war can use up his 3RR allowance in his registered identity and then be granted an extra 3 reverts unregistered (and then go back to the registered identity ad infinitum thus having a six for the price of three revert allowance). Is that legal or not? I am a complete duffer when it comes to wikilawyering and would like some clarification on that point! If the same person is using a registered and unregistered identity in tandem is that classed as one user or as two users on the 3RR rule? Colin4C (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a red herring. Of course nobody can violate 3RR by signing out and using an IP address. That's not at issue here. I am not using a registered account and an IP address in tandem and am not violating any policy. There are no 3RR violations, attempts to pretend to be another party to confuse people, or anything else. DreamGuy (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply ridiculous. Elonka has been making false accusations of sockpuppeting for years as part of her longstanding grudge against me, which came to a head recently when she was up for admin (in which Ryan Postlethewaite was her biggest supporter, accusing me of lying about harassing emails Elonka sent, etc.). In fact, her history of falsely accusing me of sockpuppets to try to get her way was in discussion as part of her admin application, and, whattya know, now that she's an admin right away she's continuing on with it. Her accusations here are nothing more than a major violation of WP:AGF -- In effect, she wants me punished or restricted in some way because she assumes, without any evidence, that I am up to no good. The bottom line here is that there are no rules here that I or people in general here HAVE to edit signed on if they have an account, and considering that it's all too easy to end up not signed in anymore after you change browsers or the cookie expires or whatever, is a good thing. None of my edits on IP address has violated any sanctions or indeed any policy on Wikipedia whatsoever... This is just a desperate attempt by Elonka to find any excuse she can come up with to harass me some more. Please note also how Elonka assisted Jack1957 in filing the false sockpuppet report this time around. She really needs to demonstrate some of that good faith and letting go of personal conflicts she promised, and if she is unwilling to do that she needs to be told to stop making false accusations and trying to invent trouble.. DreamGuy (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I had nothing to do with Jack1956 filing his Checkuser, he did that completely on his own. The first I heard of it, or your latest anon, was when I saw that the Checkuser page had been updated. I did advise Jack1956, after he filed that report, that he should probably inform the affected editors.[186] I have also informed him about this extension request, since his name is on my report. But that's the extent of it. So no, I'm not "behind" this latest checkuser, I'm just reporting what I'm seeing, and recommending that the sanctions be extended to prevent further evasion. --Elonka 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I just confirm that no one has 'put me up' to filing a sockpuppet report concerning Dreamguy. I did it entirely myself after noticing what I recognised as Dreamguy's editing style coming out of another anon. account. As this anonymous editing had been going on for days while Dreamguy's regular account was dormant raised suspicions in my mind, valid or otherwise. I do not accept that some one 'forgets' to log in for days on end. I can accept that it happens from time to time, but not consistently in this manner. Jack1956 (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Dreamguy consistently "forgets" to log in and continues causing problems in the editwarring/civility departments until someone notices the IP is him. He's been asked not to do it multiple times and doesn't seem to want to do so voluntarily. Since he is already under ArbCom restrictions, it seems incredibly reasonable to ask him not to avoid scrutiny in this manner. Lets get past this "you can't sanction me because Elonka and I don't get along" nonsense once and for all. Shell ^babelfish 22:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would point out as well, that the last time this occurred (immediately prior to his last ArbCom enforcement [complaint), he had been editing anonymously - and then supported them as DreamGuy (posting within 15 minutes as first the anon and then as DreamGuy, supporting the anon user's edits). He of course denied ever using the IP account, despite having been asked specifically by Dicklyon about it. The fact that he evaded answering the pointed inquiries as to his usage of the account clearly indicate that he is well aware of the sticky issues regarding editing anonymously. And since this isn't the first or even third time this specific problem has occurred, it might seem like the proper time to perhaps deliver a stronger message that this is not going to be tolerated by users in Wikipedia, and is certainly not going to be tolerated by users currently under behavioral restriction. editing anonymously allows DG to act as he will (and again, its indicated that this anon activity has yet again been uncivil), specifically thumbing his nose at the ArbCom restrictions. I don't care how good an editor he is - if we allow his behavior to continue, what do we say to other editors who contribute less and act as poorly when they point to the non-enforcement of behavioral restrictions? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(as per a request for clarification as to the socking and other events, I have provided diffs and links for the things I've pointed out. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

These efforts in support of Elonka's attempt to extend DG's sanctions appear spurious and needlessly longwinded. It is also, blatantly, a punitive one, unless the ip/s can be demonstrated to have been abusive, recently. Her subpage looks dated, poorly organized, and convoluted. El_C 06:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree here, if you edit anonymously in the same way that caused you to be sanctioned by Arbcom in the first place, that's a clear case of evasion/circumvention of the penalties. Unless the policy is in dispute (or the facts are in error) it's pretty clear: "Evading sanctions will cause the timer to restart, and may lengthen the duration of the sanctions." (italics mine) policy link. R. Baley (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now all we need is proof that DG "edit[ed] anonymously in the same way that caused [him] to be sanctioned." Any recent diff will do. El_C 09:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without prejudice, "recent" is an additional qualifier not found in policy. All that would need to be shown is that the violation was made during the same time period as the sanction. The point of socking is usually to avoid detection, that one does it successfully for a while does not earn exemption (or a cookie). R. Baley (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC) (add: lest anyone think I'm here to keep arguing this will most likely be my last post on this topic -R. Baley (talk))[reply]

If there hasn't been any violation in months, then we can, and should, assume good faith about conduct having been refomred. El_C 10:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, while I think that it has been pointed out that the behavior under the anon wasn't very civil, it seems clear that El_C thinks we should AGF with DreamGuy yet again. I think that anything else that pops up ont he radar about DG should be directed immediately to El_C or Dmcdevit, so they can act on the matter quickly enough that. As a matter of timely action repeatedly seems to be the deciding factor in this matter, let's all stay on our toes and be sure to report anything that occurs right away. Satisfactory? -

What about your behaviuor? I keep asking for evidence, you keep responding with rumor, and round & round we go. El_C 10:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If DG lost his patient due to this sort of tendentious conduct, I can't blame him. El_C 10:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• He has within the last few days twice reverted my sourced and referenced edits on Walter Dew, once as Dreamguy and once as the anon. user, putting in unsourced and unreferenced material instead. Jack1956 (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not proof of a violation, or anything. He is allowed to revert "twice within a few days." It looks like he argued that you were presenting the "sourced and referenced" additions as original synthesis.^[187] It's a content dispute. El_C 11:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At Walter Dew Dreamguy has appeared in three different identities (two unregistered numbers and his registered Dreamguy name) between 3rd and the 9th of Jan. of this year. As I know nothing about wikilawyering I am not saying that this is right or wrong, but, for what its worth, it's a fact. He has used each of the identities to revert one other editor's (not me) contributions. This might confuse some editors who might assume that they are dealing with a majority three editors against one editorial conflict, wheras it is just one against one. Colin4C (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One could always ask the two ips if they are him: assuming good faith and focusing on the contributors not the contributor/s. People are permitted to edit when from ips, and some people edit from different places. El_C 11:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will ask him. I assume thay are the same as Dreamguy from past experience as an editor on the wikipedia: they both use the same confrontational language and both revert stuff without talking about it on the talk page. But that is not really my point. My point is that neophyte editors might assume that there is a concensus against their edit if they see three seemingly different editors reverting their stuff. Therefore swapping between registered and unregistered gives one an advantage in an edit war if the other editor doesn't know that the three are one and the same person. The neophyte editor might think: 'The concensus is against me: I will withdraw my obnoxious edit!' That seems to me unfair: but once again I must state that I'm not a wikilawyer and if it is permissable to use three different identities in the space of 6 days engaged in the same revert war then I'm fine with that! Colin4C (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that that incident counts as a revert war,; and wikilawyer is a very negative term here. El_C 11:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about one particular case. I would just like to know in a hypothetical case on the wikipedia whether it would be acceptible in an edit war to switch between a variety of different unregistered addresses and your registered address and not indicate to the other editors that the same person is behind the the different identities. Is that acceptible or not? Also if a registered editor is asked whether the user was using an unregistered address on the same article would he be obliged to answer or not? Or is it wrong to ask in the first place? Where does the burden of proof lie? There is also the Catch 22 of either not assuming goodfaith or being duped by the same multiple identity trick for the twentieth time. In my first encounters with Dreamguy on the Jack the Ripper page I assumed that the unregistered identities and Dreamguy's were separate editors, but he uses the same tactic in many different articles and is once again using it now at this very moment at the Walter Dew article. Can unregistered identities be required to declare themselves or not? Where does the burden of proof lie? Colin4C (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:DreamGuy has remedies dealing with "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith", as well as enforcements. He has gamed them, the spirit of the arb ruling is to prevent such behavior. I have therefore blocked for 96 hours because although not strictly within said restrictions, his conduct is clearly gaming them. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motions