Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Shortcuts

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:


Current requests

User:Mackan79

Initiated by Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival at 21:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

See below for why a request for comment or other dispute resolution escalation short of arbitration would be inappropriate.

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

I believe I have, by accident, stumbled on a quite longstanding and serious case of harassment. The harassing party appears to believe that he has impunity to speculate wildly about supposed abusive collusion between two users in good standing, referring to his activities as "dispute resolution".

The dispute between SlimVirgin and Mackan79 seems to have begun some time ago. At the time of his December 21, 2006 block for edit warring, he accused SlimVirgin of "wikistalking" him [3]. The following month, SlimVirgin noted that he had made his first edit to new anti-semitism [4] within hours of her warning him on his talk page about his mode of participation in various other articles related to judaism.[5]

For the past six months or so it appears that Mackan79 has successfully avoided clashing with SlimVirgin, but recently things changed. Yesterday during the discussion of Mackan79's request to have an inappropriate block expunged from his block log, SlimVirgin brought up the incident of apparent stalking, remarking that several other editors had asked him to stop. Half an hour later she thought better and removed it with the edit summary " removing parts of my previous post that were too personal and had no bearing on this issue". Mackan79 responded to the original note a few minutes later [6], then reverted himself when he saw that SlimVirgin had removed it. [7]. He then transferred the comment to SlimVirgin's talk page [8].

What concerns me is the extraordinary nature of the speculative accusations Mackan79 engaged in, apparently alleging some kind of inappropriate collusion between two editors because they agree with one another. Although no Wikipedian policy or principle is cited, he claims that this is not a personal attack but dispute resolution, and has repeatedly defended his actions [9] [10] and amplified and compounded his speculative and unfounded attacks [11][12] under the guise of "dispute resolution", despite my request that he avoid this matter [13].

Obviously a request for comment or mediation on this matter would simply give him the opportunity to repeated his unfounded and damaging personal attacks. I therefore urge the committee to resolve the issue. --21:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by non-party User:Dtobias

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander... pot, meet kettle! I would urge the ArbCom to look into the behavior of all parties in this case, and see if perhaps the initiator of this case is performing an act of psychological projection, and attributing to Mackan79 the sorts of behaviors both he and the victims of the alleged "harrassment" he is trying to protect have been doing to others who oppose them. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Mackan79

As the committee is aware, I have presented evidence in private regarding the editing relationship of SlimVirgin and Crum375. As I have laid out in numerous places, this followed a dispute with the two editors, and observation that the two appeared to be using similar approaches in other situations that raised concerns about a misleading relationship between the accounts. The evidence covered various aspects of these issues, and was presented in September of last year.

Following communication with two Arbitrators, I was told that the Committee had closed the discussion for the time being, not believing that the evidence indicated a violation of policy. Upon receipt I sent additional information, but was quickly told that the discussion was closed for the time being. I asked in response if the Committee objected to my raising the issue on Wikipedia, but did not receive a response on this point (or any other specifics).

At the time of these communications in September, SlimVirgin had stopped editing, and would not return for approximately a month. Based on this, I believed the issue might well go away. SlimVirgin returned, however, while I observed that Crum continued to act in peculiar fashion for someone generally very measured in their comments.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][ (other edits I noted were since deleted[22][23][24][25]). More recently, Crum375 was blocked for similar actions, reverting many times against many editors in an arbitration case against multiple editors on subsequent days. The two had continued to edit together extensively, with a recent discussion on AN/I also discussing the editing relationship.[26]

Tony’s explanation of how the situation came to a head is accurate. After an Arbitrator suggested I could have my block log expunged following a very poorly considered block, the issue was presented on AN/I. SV responded first, reraising old allegations, including in them the evidence that I had submitted to the Committee. She removed the comment while I was responding. In addition to turning the issue into evidence against me, and again showing up to damage me on an issue that should have been unrelated to our dispute, I decided that it was important to respond despite the deletion. Considering she had also raised the issue of my communications with the Committee, and because my last request for advisement did not receive response, I decided that it was appropriate to ask SV to explain the nature of her editing relationship with Crum375.[27]

At this point, I would again ask the Committee to determine how to proceed. If this advisement is that the community should address the issue, this could be one response. In that case, I am likely to simply consider my question asked and unanswered. One possible issue, as I offered on my talk page, is whether in situations like this where so much controversy surrounds an editor that their editing relationships can’t openly be discussed, the editor should then avoid controversial editing relationships. In that sense, any harmful investigations could be avoided. To be clear, there are also claims of harassment that could be heard, and I should clarify that all claims that I have “harassed” anyone in this are a complete reversal of what has happened, but my statements on this have been presented to an extent that I do not specifically ask the committee to resolve it. Mackan79 (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Reject as premature. Accusations of sockpuppetry and collusion have unfortunately become de rigueur in Wikipedia disputes now; their presence here does not waive the need for preliminary dispute resolution process to be followed. Kirill 22:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Decline. (And involved, though as neutral administrative/arbitrator, rather than as a party, for full disclosure.) Background of my awareness: - GWH emailed Arbcom with his concern that Mackan had self-outed as a sock of a banned user, a concern worded fairly, and based upon a good-faith but erroneous interpretation of a post by Mackan. I investigated (at least 4 checkusers did so in total) and within 1.5 hours emailed GWH back that this was "exceedingly unlikely". GWH for reasons I don't fully understand, later blocked Mackan, a block that was reversed. Somewhere in all this Mackan also engaged in a phone call with a checkuser and provided enough positive identification for it to be verified that he was not the person allegedly in question. A while after this, a discussion ensued from one Arbitrator wondering whether the block log was problematic enough to be wiped, and due to concerns of good faith excessive favor (this is not a move most users would have for a bad block) I posted a statement requesting communal views at ANI on the suggestion. SlimVirgin posted a strongly worded objection which to my mind was unhelpful and cited Mackan allegedly being a problem in other ways, then toned it right down to a fair one sentence opinion, which allowed the thread to be concluded fairly (no alteration to the log was made; the discussion at ANI is sufficient for Mackan to rebut allegations if raised in future). SV has broadly avoided Mackan and seems to wish for him to avoid her, it seems, and has not suggested raising any case on the matter as far as I know.
    Upon review, I don't actually see an Arbitration need here. The dispute was quiet, and other than SV's post and retraction, and Mackan's response and retraction, has shown no real sign of being a problem at this time. If Mackan visibly follows SV around and discomfits her, then there is a wealth of remedy in various policies and guidelines to deal with it, which she or anyone else can invoke. Arbitration is the last resort of this, and yet whilst it is laudable to seek to help others, it is not at all clear to me that "other measures have failed" (or even that there is a genuiinely active problem of a magnitude to need it at present). Indeed most measures have not been sought or tried. And the concern that possible misconduct by Mackan (if a problem) could not be addressed by those processes seems unsupported at this time. The one circumstance I would accept would be if there was strong evidence of harassment by Mackan that could not be shown on-wiki which was of such a nature that it would be material to assessing the matter and yet could not be made public. Even then an Arbitrator might post that they have seen material X which shows Y, for some kinds of material. The other matter is, SV herself has not sought any action save avoidance of dispute, a sensible approach. This brief spat is due to a misjudged post of hers that she very quickly withdrew, and which he too withdrew his response to in recognition of her withdrawal, both of them apparently seeking to avoid dispute. Posting his comment to her talk page instead, for discussion, is not under that circumstance, an action I would say signifies an arbitration case is proven needed for stalking. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Rawat

Initiated by ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) at 20:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

Statement by User:Jossi

Despite the recent involvement of several editors, and the good progress being made in improving the article Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in the past month, a substantial amount of disruption has taken place, including edit warring, tendentious editing, soapboxing, personal attacks, and numerous round-trips to WP:AN/I. The article was protected three times since February 9, the last protection taking place today (March 16, 2008). See log

On March 4, upon a proposal made by User:Will Beback and I, the article was placed on 1RR and disruption probation. This helped for a while, only to be later ignored (See AN/I reports: 1,2, 3).

In addition to the disruption, evidence of which will be provided if ArbCom accepts to hear the case, several editors continue to challenge my involvement, despite my February 10 self-imposed moratorium in editing the article , in response to the feedback from the community related to my declared COI (See User:Jossi/Response#Declaration of intent), restricting myself to talk-page discussions and reporting disruption at AN/I. Despite requests from me and other editors to substantiate the challenge with diff-based evidence to any type of COI-based disruption or abuse of admin privileges, no such evidence has been forthcoming, leaving me with no recourse to defend myself.

I would encourage the ArbCom to hear this case with a view to impose article probation and/or other restrictions, as well as evaluate my behavior and the behaviors of all other involved editors and assess if any type of restrictions should be imposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by non-party Cla68

This is the kind of issue that ArbCom was made for. Jossi shouldn't be anywhere near the Prem Rawat articles. He has severe COI issues, as disclosed, in part, by himself and further revealed in the recent Register article, and he continues to disrupt attempts to make the Rawat articles more neutral, such as by quickly archiving talk page discussions before they are finished and by trying to keep out referenced material from the article. He even tried to argue that the Los Angeles Times couldn't be used as a source for the article. Because of extensive community intervention, the Rawat articles are now more neutral than they were before, but Jossi is still fighting as hard as he can to keep them as close to "his" version as as possible, which I believe may be the reason for his last-ditch use of the ArbCom to try to salvage what he can. If the ArbCom accepts this case, you're going to see a lot of diffs and ANI, COI, and reliable sources board thread links entered as evidence and I think you'll see one person in particular right at the center of all the NPOV problems with those articles, and that's Jossi. Cla68 (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to statement...it appears that there may be some COI or obvious POV-pushing with other editors also. It may be that Jossi isn't the only one who needs to be prohibited from involvement with any of the Rawat articles. Also, I see no evidence of abuse of admin privileges by Jossi, just POV-pushing. Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by user:Francis Schonken

I repeat the request I have formulated earlier today at WP:ANI [39]:

Hereby, then, I ask formally that Jossi would be disallowed any further involvement in any Prem Rawat-related topic, via whatever media under the WMF's remit, for unrelentlessly protecting POV-pushers like Momento and Janice Rowe.

Regarding Jossi's "Despite requests from me and other editors to substantiate the challenge with diff-based evidence to any type of disruption or abuse of admin privileges, no such evidence has been forthcoming" – we all know this is not about abuse of admin privileges. There's no desysop request, certainly not by me, and I have none seen brought forward in the Prem Rawat-related issues.

The case (if one is accepted) is about WP:COI involvement, which is still going out of hand even when editors which have such COI involvement only edit talk pages related to the articles at hand.

I'd propose (at least) that any editor directly or indirectly involved with the content of Prem Rawat related articles would be required To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page. (italicised part copied from the recently concluded Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland#Editors instructed, D.) --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Momento

If COI is defined as editing that is incompatible with "the aims of Wikipedia which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia", then Jossi is innocent. He has made great efforts for many years to ensure that all articles he becomes involved in are "neutral and reliably sourced" and that includes the Prem Rawat article. The recent "The Register" article and editors who are antagonistic towards Jossi and/or Prem Rawat have created a "perfect storm". Numerous editors, many anonymous flocked to the Rawat article to add "criticism". Unfortunately, much of the "criticism" is a clear violation of the Biographies of Living Persons policy and that produced much reverting and edit warring. Jossi and WillBeback worked together to come up with the 1RR proposal which slowed things right down and was producing constructive results. Stricter enforcing of existing Wiki policies will solve the problem and that's what Jossi tries to do via the talk page. And for the record, I have no COI.Momento (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Brauns suggests below that I have been a student of Rawat for 30 years therefore I must have a COI. In fact, my over riding interest in the Rawat article is that it should be "neutral and reliably sourced", let the facts speak for themselves.Momento (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by semi-involved Lawrence Cohen

Urge acceptance of this case. This is a long, long standing case of conflicting interests, possibilities of demonstrable efforts to own articles, many instances of dancing around BLP, and possibly a list of others. Community enforced 1RR has largely failed here, external media attention in the The Register has largely failed despite all the news eyes it brought in, and now the various parties are trying to find liberal interpretations of 1RR to use against each other. Please accept. Lawrence § t/e 22:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PatW (former follower)

I also urge acceptance of this case. However I think it would be absurd to make this an issue of POV pushing by non-administrators. There is a lively battle going on there with all asserting their POV's with varying degrees of civility. The presence of people who have not been and are not Rawat followers is of course very important to keep things balanced. What is clearly the current problem is that Jossi is not only an administrator but also is a highly dedicated Rawat follower with some important position as a the latter's webmaster, PR guy or whatever, and that considerably upsets the status quo between opposing POV's. Notably he has been judged as acting unfairly, not only by critics (which one might expect) but by neutral editors. I think that a more ideal 'level playing field' would be one where there is an experienced 'COI-less' administrator and all others are permitted to carry on. If ex-followers are to be considered ' persona non grata' then obviously current followers should be also. I don't think that's a practical solution but then again, I would willingly retire my influence if that were the case. As a critic, it may surprise you that probably the best outcome for me would be that the article about Prem Rawat was written entirely by totally non-involved people. I have complete faith that this situation would do fair justice to Prem Rawat. PatW (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To make my point. Here someone called Renee well demonstrates the confusion between acceptable COI and otherwise: I think Wikipedians should be aware that COI is two-sided and that neutrality is the middle. PatW has a clear COI with the Prem Rawat article.Renee (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
POV is not conflict of interest. Yes my interest is indeed to correct the imbalance in that article, but my interest is counter-balanced by others with opposite POVs. That is a workable and fair principle. People who disagree are also welcome to edit and argue their case. I fully admit that I should certainly not be in an administrative position there though. Neither should Jossi by the same token. Even truly neutral participants have objected to his involvement on these grounds. Put simply because the article is so contentious, the last thing it needs is Rawat's own man wielding power there. Do you understand why his is a COI too far, that unbalances the status quo between opposing POV's and creates an atmosphere of mistrust? PatW (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by non-party user:Maelefique

I have followed this article for months, and despite Jossi's claims of "making good progress", it seems an awful lot more like 1 step forward, and 2 steps back, the vast majority of conflict seems to be attributable to a few editors in particular, who seem to constantly voice an obviously pro-Rawat sentiment and refuse to allow the article to read any other way. I have watched several edit wars unravel, many of which include Jossi either cajoling or threatening (with WP policies) only the editor who is not pro-Rawat, as seen in these examples here and here and here and here. I cannot find a single instance where he has acted the same way, and in the same tone, to any of the pro-Rawat editors.

When asked directly for help, if it does not lean towards a pro-Rawat statement (or is in conflict with something said/done by one of several pro-Rawat editors), Jossi is often at best, evasive, at worst, deliberately unhelpful. As evidenced here (sorry, couldn't find a better way to reference these) where I asked for a helpful reference and he referred me to the entire collection of sources available, and here (the entire argument here is not germaine, for brevity, I would suggest picking up the discussion at Will Beback's straightforward question, "Jossi, can you please give us your opinion about whether the L.A. Times and N.Y. Times are reliable sources for this article?") for example. Jossi's reply, which he even took the time to embolden, is obviously obtuse, he knows the source, and he knows the context. The question was clear and was later determined to be a reliable source [[40]].

And yet, Jossi seems to have no problem pulling up sources for statements that seem to be pro-Rawat, such as here where he manages to come up with no less than 5 sources supporting his view in less than 45 minutes (granted, this particular issue is not contentious, but I think it goes to the point that Jossi can certainly find supporting evidence when it suits his needs). I think we can stipulate that Jossi is somewhat of an authority on this subject, at least in terms of knowledge, if not viewpoint, and as such, should be held to a higher standard, certainly that would be standard in any type of academic context.

He has no problem promoting his viewpoint, backed up with many different sources, but when a viewpoint other than his own appears, he seems either strangely silent, allowing other pro-Rowat editors to further slow down the process of arriving at a consensus by arguing their blatantly obvious POV, edit-warring, etc, until other editors/admins step in to impose a halt to these actions, as was done here and here and here and here and here. Please note, that these examples are not included as any slight upon these users, they only go to illustrate my point that while Jossi is extremely active in the Prem Rawat article, he does seem to turn a blind eye to many obviously problem-ridden edits.

This pattern of conduct from Jossi seems fairly consistent with a COI, and I have to wonder, (and I realize this is probably a huge subject probably beyond the scope of this discussion), if there is ever a one-off argument for someone being involved in an organization and a consequent inability for them to discuss the issue with a NPOV, I would have to think a situation where someone is a disciple of the person being written about may be the case, as one's faith itself would, of necessity, be called into question regarding certain aspects of the subject. I don't want to suggest here that by extrapolation anyone who believes in God should not write about God for the same reason, I don't believe that and I'm not trying to suggest that (don't we have a template somewhere to notify the reader about possible COI edits in the article?). I have no doubt that many of the 50,000+ edits made by Jossi are of excellent quality and I am not questioning his admin actions either. However, doesn't the very meaning of faith include the concept of truly believing something you do not have the evidence of, or even despite evidence to the contrary of your faith? What I think about Prem Rawat should have no more or less weight than what Jossi thinks about him. If we can allow all sides of this discussion to work on this article without constant reverting/wikilawyering/whatever, I think this article could be turned into something most people could agree on, and isn't that what an encyclopedia should be? I firmly believe ArbCom should look at this case. Maelefique (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:John Brauns, webmaster of sites critical of Prem Rawat

Although Jossi has declared a COI, he has not revealed which organisation that promotes Rawat's teachings he works for, nor in what capacity. From what I know of Jossi, it is my belief that his only purpose on Wikipedia is to protect Prem Rawat's reputation, and has done whatever is required to reach Admin status with that aim, including editing a wider range of articles than those related to Rawat, and getting involved in framing Wikipedia policies. If his interest was simply to improve Wikipedia he should have retired from all involvement with Rawat related articles, so that there was no possibility of Wikipedia being tarnished by his COI. There are plenty of other Admins to ensure that the Rawat articles are neutral. Also, Momento above has stated he has no COI. This is untrue - he has been a follower of Rawat for over 30 years, and has held positions of responsibility in Rawat's organisations. Although he has a right to contribute here under an anonymous pseudonym, he does not have the right to be untruthful. --John Brauns (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
  • Four votes to accept noted. Will be opened around 00:00, March 18 (UTC) unless there are further developments. Daniel (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Accept - As parties on all sides agree, 1/ an "unusually divisive" matter between administrators, 2/ one that has had multiple attempts to resolve between those commenting above, none of which have come to anything, and 3/ one that needs resolving and is unlikely to go away, is detrimental to the community's admins, and is unlikely to be well resolved by other obvious means. (Important disclosure: If I have given any significant view or opinion on this in the past please will someone let me know. None comes to mind right now as a source of non-neutrality, but this was a high profile issue in the media a month ago, and like many users I'm fairly sure I've taken a look at this matter at some point or other as a result.) FT2 (Talk | email) 22:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Kirill 22:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Concerns that Jossi has a conflict of interest in Prem Rawat and related articles have been raised widely, sometimes in undoubted good faith. A new look at the subject could help prevent disputes. Meanwhile the community-imposed sanction on the articles has manifestly not succeeded in preventing disrupting. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept to consider the behaviour of all editors to this article. --bainer (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal of topic ban for User:Whig

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

Involved parties

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

Statement by Whig

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

  • Tanthalas39's comments [41] and [42] observing fishy, frivolous evidence against me should be noted.
  • Carcharoth's comments including [43] should also be noted.

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

RfC2 and RfC3 are precedent to this topic ban, and were brought against me by a now vanished user as justification to indefinitely block me against policy. Note that the same users who were against me in RfC2/RfC3 are lined up against me here. I would particularly note the outside view by Sbowers3 in RfC3 [44].

Statement by Moreschi

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

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

Statement by Jay*Jay

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

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

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

My suggestion to the Committee is as follows:

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

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

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

Statement by Abd

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

Statement by Lawrence Cohen

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

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

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

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

Statement by Jehochman

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

Statement by JzG

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

Comment by David Mestel

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

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/0/0)

  • Reject. While the need for a better-designed community sanction process is a valid concern—and has been previously noted by the Committee—I see no evidence that we need to second-guess the community's judgement in this particular matter. Kirill 19:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. I am happy with the community's judgement here. James F. (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject per Kirill. FloNight ♣♣♣ 20:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject for the reasons given by Kirill. I would go further and say it seems inappropriate for the committee, having closed a case and passed enforcement provisions to the community within some boundaries, to then say "that's not what we meant at all!" and overturn community-imposed sanctions that are entirely within the set boundaries. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Without cabining the scope of the committee's discretion, I could foresee our accepting a case for review of a community sanction where (1) the community discussion raised serious questions of procedural fairness (e.g., a truncated discussion, or one with only limited participation, or one that somehow barred interested editors from participating—this is not meant to encourage a legalistic approach or a search for technicalities), (2) the severity of the community sanction appeared shocking to our sense of fairness to raise serious concerns as to its merits or severity (this does not mean merely that we might not have imposed a somewhat less or more severe sanction, but that the community process appeared to have produced a serious injustice—a circumstance that I expect would be very rare); (3) there was a bona fide dispute as to whether consensus in favor of the sanction had actually been achieved (of course, this begs the question of what is a sufficient consensus for this type of remedy); or (4) the community sanction discussion raised broader concerns, beyond the sanction applied to a particular user or small group of users. In this case, the community discussion appears to have enjoyed a reasonable degree of participation, to have been open for a sufficient length of time, to have proceeded with decorum, and to have reached a justified conclusion. The community consensus seems to be that Whig brings a sufficiently strong point of view to his primary topic of editing interest such that, despite repeated chances, he has repeatedly been unable to edit with an NPOV in this area and should therefore be restricted from the area for an appropriate period of time. The result appears to be within the range of reasonable outcomes for the discussion and therefore, with regret as to the impact on Whig personally, the request for review should be declined. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline - full review and reasoning follow. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Merridew

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

Involved parties

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

Statement by White Cat

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

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

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

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

The conduct of Moby Dick can be summarized as:

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

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

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

User seems to be aware of any talk page I edit. -- Cat chi? 12:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

To put it graphically:

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

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

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

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

Response to comment by Sceptre

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

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

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

Despite the claim of Arbitrator Kirill Lokshin

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

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

Response to statement by Jack Merridew

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to rebuttal by Jéské

While my comment wasn't aimed at your post and instead more of the overall response by several parties, I apologize for the confusion. My motive behind this is not spite. I just want arbitration committee to review the conduct of a user whom I am convinced is a sockpuppet of an indef banned User:Davenbelle who to date had two sockpuppets (User:Moby Dick, User:Diyarbakir) strictly to harass me and on occasion several others.

Since blocking him indefinitely has proved to be inefficient in maintaining the ban placed on Davenbelle, I seek arbcom to perhaps add remedies - not sure what they can be. My discussion with FayssalF gave me the understanding that such an issue would need to be discussed among arbitrators.

-- Cat chi? 12:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jack Merridew

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

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

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

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

Statement by Tony Sidaway

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

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

Comment by Sceptre

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

Comment by Black Kite

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

Comment by Eusebeus

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

Comment by User:Ned Scott

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

Comment by User:Colonel Warden

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

Comment by Jéské

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

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

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

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

Comment by Pixelface

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

Casliber suggested a request for checkuser of all involved parties in the recently closed Episodes and characters 2 case. Oddly, the other day Jack Merridew contacted Casliber[58], and also contacted me[59] out of the blue with a message from the "Work Assignments Committee". I believe this was a joke related to a proposal Casliber made in the workshop of that case. I don't know why Jack Merridew contacted me in particular. I did suggest Jack Merridew be listed as an involved party in the E&C2 case.

During the E&C2 case, I believe Jack Merridew followed me around to various AFDs and I believe that editor has engaged in wikistalking. I suppose one could make a request to amend the E&C2 case if Jack Merridew is following E&C2 parties around. Jack Merridew has recently been edit-warring [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] over an article I mentioned in my evidence in the E&C2 case, King Dedede. That article was recently protected by Black Kite, an involved party of the E&C2 case. While Jack Merridew was never officially listed as an involved party, the recent behavior by that editor could be seen as a violation of the remedy that said "the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute." --Pixelface (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Casliber

The recent TV episodes Arbitration and events over the several months leading up to it reminded me of trench warfare with sides drawn up and opinions polarised among many editors (me included), many of whom are offering opinions here above. We are now at a situation where this has been aired over quite a few weeks and sounds plausible enough from what I have read, though I haven't gone through it in a huge amount of detail. This needs to be settled once and for all somehow. The key question is, can a simple checkuser or SSP wade through evidence of this length and age? If Jack Merridew is innocent, then this suspicion needs to be dispelled conclusively, likewise if otherwise. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by EconomicsGuy

I think Pixelface sums it up very nicely but in addition to that I would like the arbitrators to consider that this isn't just about the episodes dispute. Jack Merridew has in the past had a tendency to show up at disputes involving White Cat without any reason to do so and as demonstrated here without any intentions of trying to calm down the situation. The arbitrators have in the past considered complex cases involving suspected sockpuppets where the community was unable to resolve the dispute due to the complexity and age of the dispute and evidence (SevenOfDiamonds). I think., by now, it is safe to say that this will not go away as a result of any community intervention and as such I would urge the arbitrators to accept this to settle the matter once and for all. Community action will not work here and this is why we have you to make final decisions in complex cases. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Reject; I see no evidence that any prior steps in either the dispute resolution process or the sockpuppet identification process have ocurred with regard to Jack. The Committee is not the first stop for handling vague suspicions of sockpuppetry. Kirill 22:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, per Kirill. I agree with Sceptre's suggestion on vague accusations, above. James F. (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept as per my discussion with White Cat. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. I agree that other simpler methods of remedying this complaint should be pursued. FloNight ♣♣♣ 16:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcut

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



Request for clarification: Mantanmoreland

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

Notifications
[65][66][67][68]

Statement by Jehochman

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

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

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

Statement by Coren

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

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

Statement by Lawrence Cohen

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

Reply to Brad's Wikiconstitutional crisis conundrum

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

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

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

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

Statement by Doc

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

Statement by Theresa Knott | The otter sank

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

Statement by Sam Korn

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

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

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

Statement by SlimVirgin

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

Statement by User:Jay*Jay

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

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

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

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

Regarding comments from Morven:

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


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

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


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


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

Statement by David Gerard (talk)

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

Statement by SirFozzie

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

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

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

Supplemental statement by SirFozzie

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

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

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

Statement by Tony Sidaway

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

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

not quite on topic Statement by User:Rocksanddirt

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

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

Statement by Lar

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

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

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

Statement by User:Relata refero

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

Statement by Neil

Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_of_Mantanmoreland_and_Samiharris.

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

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

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

Statement by daveh4h

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

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

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

Statement by Random832

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

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

Statement by Amerique

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

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

Statement by Carcharoth

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Cool Hand Luke

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

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

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

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

Statement by Durova

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

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

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

Statement by LessHeard vanU

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

re Consensus; as mentioned, it is not a vote count - it is a determination as to which arguments carry the most weight and best reflect policy and practice. Many of the opposers cite the apparent lack of agreement at ArbCom to impose a block/ban as reason enough for the community not to "usurp" that decision. Plus, in the absence of good precedent as well as reference to policy/guideline it seems that those opposed to a ban can only refer to the experience of those so inclined to oppose. I have yet to be convinced that consensus has not been reached, and that the opposes are based either in a misunderstanding of ArbCom's position regarding a block/ban or simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT couched in a spurious appeal to authority. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

As I see it:

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

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

Long post
First thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Proposed motions and voting

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

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

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


Statement by Mackensen

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

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

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

Statement by MONGO

Hey all...my deepest appreciation for informing me about this discussion! Seriously, an arbitration case I was named in, that appears to be on the threshold of having its major motions and remedies eliminated or severely altered and NO ONE BOTHERS TO LET ME KNOW! As can be seen by the DRV on this article, there does not seem to be a community backed consensus to restore the article that has been developed in another editor's userspace. [69]...so what brings all this up? Well, let me inform you of what I know. Firstly, over a dozen of our editors resigned due to the ongoing harassment posted about them at that website...Do we need to be so inclusive we risk losing editors just so we can be such a compendium of "knowledge"...I think not. The website is of only marginal notability at best...at best. Let me repeat my first point...I know of at least a dozen editors who quit editing here because of the stuff posted on that website. I know this because after I went through what I did with the people affiliated with that website, I received over a dozen calls for aide...at one point the possibility of suing them was considered. Phaedriel was probably the best known editor to abandon this project...thanks in no small part to that website. Second point...IF we recreate the article, then ultimately someone will link to that website...that is where my fight started. They made their MONGO article "featured" and posted it on their mainpage...I repeatedly removed those links from our article on that website and was combated by a series of trolls and other editors who for some bizarre reason did not understand that I was not going to allow them or that website to libel me via this one...I am not a pedophile as the people there have written. Phaedriel is not the things they claim about her, nor are the other "wikipedos" that they have listed, accurately depicted. For the record, the article they have on me is far from the worst...very far from it. But I am here on wikipedia to write articles and to protect our editors from harassment...I cannot do that if we, as a website, are going to turn a blind eye to this major issue just so we can be "all inclusive", especially when we are talking about a website of extremely marginal notability, that attacks our contributors, and yes, slanders and libels them. Many complain that we, right here on Wikipedia, also slander and libel people, especially in our bios...that is a serious issue, but we have the power here to do something about that. We do not have the power to make adjustments to the same (and generally far worse) slander and libel that ED presents. But we can control whether we import that nonsense here. There are still millions of articles we can write...what the heck makes having an article on ED so important? How many articles do we yet lack about various insect species, birds, plants, glaciers, people, events, places? Maybe the committee would be better off telling the dramaqueens that have started to proliferate this website to start writing articles and stop wasting our server space with their generally worthless opinions, than spending so much energy rewriting an arbitration case in which the situation hasn't changed...that website still lacks notability, it still libels our contributors, it will ultimately lead to further problems...and further time wasted here, in this particular forum. Lastly, I do have other things I can do with my time than edit here...my life is valuable to me and the friends I have made here on this website are important to me...let's not be trendy and get limp wristed about this matter...we have an obligation to do all we can to make editing here a pleasant experience...not one where we have to look over our shoulder wondering why some creep has decided that he can link to ED and attack our contributors in the process. Yes, I know, the committee does not make content rulings in most cases...well maybe you should in this matter and do so with the spirit of respect and in the interest of facilitating encyclopedia writing and the writers who contribute here and ensuring they have the ability to spend their valuable personal time in peace as much as possible.--MONGO 07:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by User:Dtobias

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

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

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

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

Statement by Carcharoth

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

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

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Proposed motions and voting

For this motion, there are 13 active Arbitrators (excluding 1 who is abstaining), so 7 votes are a majority.

Motion 1 - It is not prohibited to create a Wikipedia article on Encyclopædia Dramatica (per discussion above):
The Arbitration Committee's decisions in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites shall not be interpreted to prohibit (or to encourage) the creation of an article on Encyclopædia Dramatica. The existence and contents of any such article may be determined through the ordinary editorial and deletion processes.
Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC) (Note that permitting creation of a specific article on ED, and the suggestions below, are mutually compatible if needed.)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 06:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill 03:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. For the purposes of clarification of the previous decision. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support with the understanding that "this motion" will be re-visited if needed. My main concern comes from the past practice of keeping low quality content on site if there is not a consensus to remove vs. requiring a consensus to keep the low quality content. When closing Afds and DRVs, the Community is moving away from this practice especially if there are Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy concerns. This more recent practice is a reasonable approach to resolving user concerns that once low quality articles are added that it must remain on site in anticipation that it will eventually bloom into a well balanced good quality article. If needed I think that the Committee should endorse this practice in a ruling. An Encyclopedia Dramatica article, if ever re-created in a low quality state, might be an good example of why this is not a good idea. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Proposed per above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Motion 2 - Linking if article recreated
If an article on Encyclopædia Dramatica is recreated, then editors may link to or quote that site for that article only, and only so far as is necessary to present high quality encyclopedic coverage whose citing is not possible from independent reliable sources. Questionable quotations and links may be removed by any user without regard to 3RR, pending discussion.
Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC) If recreation is allowed, then guidance on linking is needed, else we will surely have an immediate clarification request. Proposed guidance can be summed up as, "only if you really have to, and only on that article (and pertaining to it)". The "removal" clause is out of respect for the concerns of those who, if it is recreated, will have strong reservations about abuse.[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This would be fair as applied to most sites discussed in the "Attack pages" case or any similar site, but I am gravely troubled by allowing any linking to a site that contains overt and extreme harassment of editors here who are minors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Manifestly this is making policy. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The points made about linking in the Attack sites case remain pertinent here; I see no reason to carve out exceptions for specific sites at this point. Kirill 20:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Sam Blacketer and Newyorkbrad. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This would lead to confusion beyond necessity. On balance, I don't think this would improve the project. James F. (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I would prefer to decide whether to cross this bridge when we come to it, in other words when it is agreed that there can be an article on ED. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Motion 3 - Attack links
Links to media and other non-wiki pages, and external web pages, may be described as "attack links" if it is likely that a user following them would be exposed to material that is a clear personal attack or "outing" on themselves or other specific user(s). It is irrelevant whether the attack is explicit or subtle, or in what format it may be. In judging whether a link is an 'attack link', or judging 'likelihood' for a website, attention should be paid to the size and nature of the site, the location linked within it, the focus and usefulness of material found there, and the likely intentions of the poster, and 'attacks' are to be carefully distinguished from mere 'criticisms'. A link may be an attack link in one context and not in another, and may need removal even if not deliberately posted as a means of personal attack.
Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The committee's decision in the Attack sites case states that the policy issues surrounding links to "attack sites" or "attack pages" are referred to the community for policy development. Discussion of appropriate policies has continued and it appears that the issue is being responsibly addressed. I am not convinced there is a need for further action in this divisive policy area by the committee at this time. Therefore, although this proposal appears to be substantially sound as a policy matter, I am not convinced that it should be adopted by the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This kind of principle is well within norms and our usual role. Compare MONGO 11: A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances ("an attack site/link is one with these characteristics, and these norms apply"). FT2 (Talk | email) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I see no need to dig up Attack sites at this point; the present matter shows that the community is able to deal with it as a matter of course, if nothing else. Kirill 03:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is an attempt to revive 'Attack sites' which was rejected by the community. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Manifestly this is making policy. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Charles, Flo. The community either has no real appetite for this policy, or insufficient cohension to push it through, as per the previous cases. James F. (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I mostly agree with the motions wording, and completely with the spirit of the motion, but I think it needs to come from the Community per policy not by a new ruling of the Committee. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Motion 4 - Sourcing from websites known to carry material pejorative to users
In referencing sites known for carrying attack or "outing" material against users, exceptional care must be taken, including avoiding links where there is no overriding valid purpose that cannot be better served from a better location. Any user may replace such a link by another link serving the same purpose, from a less contentious website, or removing it (with posters agreement if possible) if it is not needed for a legitimate communal process. Links that have both valid concerns and also possible value, may need consensus-seeking to determine whether they have enough value to override the possible concerns.
Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The committee's decision in the Attack sites case states that the policy issues surrounding links to "attack sites" or "attack pages" are referred to the community for policy development. Discussion of appropriate policies has continued and it appears that the issue is being responsibly addressed. I am not convinced there is a need for further action in this divisive policy area by the committee at this time. Therefore, although this proposal appears to be substantially sound as a policy matter, I am not convinced that it should be adopted by the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This kind of principle is well within norms and our usual role. This is a more useful and usable reworking of the aim of the MONGO restrictions on certain sites. It does not introduce any contentious new policy, but does well address the situation and similar situations that MONGO tried to address on ED. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 06:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Per Brad.[reply]
  3. As in #3. Kirill 03:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Same issue as motion 3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Manifestly this is making policy. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per my thoughts on 3. James F. (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I mostly agree with the motions wording, and completely with the spirit of the motion, but I think it needs to come from the Community per policy not by a new ruling of the Committee. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Motion 5 - Amendment to past cases
In the case "Mongo", principles 3 and 7 shall be reworded to refer to "attack links", remedy 1 shall be reworded to refer to "links that the community determines are attack links may be removed" (etc.), and enforcement 1 shall refer to "attack links" and the reference to imported material and recording of blocks struck out.
Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As in #3. Kirill 03:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. To go with opposition to motions 3 and 4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Let sleeping dogs lie. Past principles have no value for precedent or policy. They had the purpose of explaining how a decision was made. If the decision was wrong, we should be considering that for review, not undermining it in this fashion. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per Charles Matthews. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Charles. James F. (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I would prefer a simple statement that a policy adopted by consensus of the community supersedes the MONGO and Attack sites cases, if that is what it is sought to accomplish here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The bulk of MONGO and Attack sites is sound and we probably don't wish to weaken or upturn them. But these specific items are outdated, and 18 months on hinder rather than help. Withdrawing them will be useful. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Statement by MastCell

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

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

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

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

Statement by Ferrylodge

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

The administrator who handled this matter at Arbitration Enforcement said: "Even had the ArbComm clarified that it was clearly intended to cover talk pages; I was probably not going to act. Using an article's talkpage to discuss article content is not inherently disruptive; that is the intended purpose of the talk page."[73]

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

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

Since Mastcell indicates[74] that he does not want to identify the specific diff that he thinks is most egregious (as I requested above), I doubt it would be helpful for me to say anything further at this time.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

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

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

Proposed motions and voting

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking_3

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

Statement by Avruch

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

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

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

Additional, responding to Arbitrators comments so far

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

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

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

Follow up

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

Statement by Uninvolved User Jay*Jay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by WJBscribe

I emailed the following analysis to ArbCom yesterday:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by David Mestel

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

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

Comment from AGK

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

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

Respectively, these issues can be addressed very simply:

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

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

Comment from Zocky

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

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' views and discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Request for clarification: Digwuren

Statement by Moreschi

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

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

Statement by User:Martintg

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

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

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

Statement by User:Biophys

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

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

Statement by User:Vecrumba

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

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

Statement by User:Relata refero

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

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

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

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

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

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

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

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

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

Proposed motions and voting

For this motion, there are 14 active Arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.

Motion:

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

Support:

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

Oppose:

Abstain:

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=198774795

Leave a Reply