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:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Current requests

Request for Arbitration: Gerald Guterman

Initiated by Smilo Don (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Smilo_Don (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
NetHistoryBuff5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

All parties notified.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I have been in repeated, and fruitless, contact with NetHistoryBuff, who has generally disregarded Talk pages, and attempts to collaborate. This matter has gone on for weeks now.

I have contacted about 8 editors for help (from the "editors willing to help" page), but none have really pursued the matter.

I've never faced a dispute that couldn't be worked out in an amiable manner, but NHB5 rebuffs all edits which he dislikes, and accused me of being "paid" to slander Mr. Guterman.

Statement by Smilo_Don

I feel that NetHistoryBuff5, a new user, has willfully disregarded WP policies and protocol. He has gone far, far beyond 3RR. He wants his own personal version to remain, with no additions. He seems more interested in creating a puff piece than a WP biography. I welcome his edits, but not his wholesale removal of referenced information. He seems to feel that the fact of Guterman's bankruptcy and controversial dealings in New York City real estate are "libelous." I don't see why. Donald Trump has had his troubles too, but so what? These are just facts, as cited. And the article enumerates Mr. Guterman's many achievements.

More seriously, the user seems to be a biased party, with no other interests on WP. I believe that he has a COI (conflict of interest).

I've tried everything, for weeks, to try to clear up the matter and build a comprehensive biography with the pros and cons of Mr. Guterman's life. I request that editors speak to NHB5 and consider blocking him for a bit (and new users) until he learns a bit more about WP. Smilo Don (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NetHistoryBuff5

As stated on the discussion board: The objections here are pretty straight forward. Smilo's contributions have been nothing more than malicious, and reckless. The intent of Smilo's edits are obviously malicious and go against Wiki guidlines on many fronts. Wikipedia is (in my opinion) VERY clear about the care with which one should take when making edits to BLP. While virtually all edits from Smilo have been taken into account in this version, any additional edits should be discussed first, and one at a time. Due to "False Light" concerns, potentially libelous material, and the fact that Wiki makes it clear that BLP edits should be handled with the utmost care, I find it prudent to start from THIS version (which by the way includes, 90% of Smilo's edits in reasonable form) and work our way to a piece that we both agree on, INSTEAD of working from Smilo's smear campaign BACKWARDS...

The current article in its present form takes into account virtually all of his negative inclusions INCLUDING the subjects bankruptcy. There is and has been no issue with the inclusion of the material and it is included in the article in appropriate form and timeline. There is however an issue with the context of his edits and inclusions as Smilo would like to see them. If you look at the current headings "1988 Tax Law Reversal" as well as "Criticism" you will see that there is no cover up of FACT and that these particular edits were included in txt.

I have not "disregarded WP policies and protocol" nor have I gone far beyond 3RR. As a matter of FACT, I have been the most active contributor to the discussion page and followed the requests of all editors.

As you can see (on Smilo's talk page) by the comments of several other editors that Smilo_Don reached out too, they have all suggested that he take his own advice in following Wiki Protocol and Policies.

Wiki guidelines for editing a BLP make it abundantly clear that the utmost care should be given to ensure that the subject is not being harmed, slandered, or painted in a false light. This is why myself and other Wiki editors have repeatedly asked for Smilo to discuss his edits on the discussion board prior to making wholesale edits and reverting txt.

I request that editors speak to Smilo_Don and consider blocking him for a bit until he is willing to work from the current piece and discuss his edits as requested on his talk page by multiple editors.

There is a solution here and it's not in wholesale edits and false light spinning.

Statement by {Party 2}

Statement by GRBerry

Upon review, this looks like an edit war issue, not a BLP issue. An admin that isn't about to take a vacation can probably handle this. Here is the net change in the Smilo don version since 9 July. Here is the net change in the NetHistoryBuff5 version since 8 July. Probably 75% of the difference between the two versions is in having the same paragraphs in different locations. GRBerry 03:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Horologium

This is a refile of the same case, involving the same users, which was rejected for the same reason last week. diff Smilo Don needs to be reminded that abuse of the WP:RFAR process can result in sanctions too. Take it to Third Opinion, Mediation or Request for Comment before bringing it here again. Horologium (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Reject. Premature. I don't see where any other steps in dispute resolution have been undertaken. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject as premature. Kirill ^(prof) 11:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Paul August ☎ 13:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guido den Broeder

Initiated by Privatemusings (talk) at 23:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Sam Korn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Mangojuice (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Chaser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Carcharoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Golbez (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Davidruben (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Gmaxwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Robotje (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Art Unbound (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
(Other) users participating at ANI and WP:NLT

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

I posted notes to all talk pages above - Privatemusings (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)happy to provide diff.s - but the link is available directly above, and I'd like to avoid clutter where possible...[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[1] Evidence presented to blocking admin, unanswered. Direct link is here
[2] Unblock requests, denied. Direct link is here
[3] Questions asked to reviewing admins, unanswered. Direct link is here
[4] Notes regarding statements made at ANI. Response only by Davidruben, mainly consisting of a failed attempt to get me kicked from the Harmonious Editing Club. Direct link is here
[5] Calls for reflection by Chaser and Carcharoth at ANI, unanswered. This thread has been archived to here
[6] Calls for reflection by Golbez and Gmaxwell at WP:NLT talk, unanswered. Direct link is here

Statement by Guido den Broeder

Upon ANI report filed by Fram, I was immediately blocked indefinitely by Future Perfect at Sunrise, who wrongly assumed that I had made a legal threat. Block was executed while ANI discussion had not even started, thereby prohibiting any defense there. Blocking admin failed to check back and note my response on my talk page.

First reviewing admin Sam Korn stated that I would not have been blocked had I not brought the nl:Wikipedia dispute to en:Wikipedia. I provided evidence that not I, but Oscar had done that, but reviewing admin failed to check back and note my response.

Second reviewing admin Sandstein completely ignored first reviewing admin's reasoning as well as evidence provided, and merely quoted policy, not noticing that the dispute is a nl:dispute so policy does not apply. Reviewing admin failed to check back and note my response.

Third reviewing admin Mangojuice completely ignored first and second reviewing admins' reasoning as well as evidence provided, wrongly assumed that I had brought legal action to en:Wikipedia, and wrongly concluded consensus to block at ANI (the discussion is still open). Admin failed to check back and note my response.

The question put to the Arbcom is, whether legal action between individual users relating to events on nl:Wikipedia does or does not warrant an indefinite block on en:Wikipedia, and to unblock if the answer is no.

Added notes.

Since neither I nor Oscar is discussing or likely to discuss the content of the nl:dispute on en:Wikipedia, unblocking does not seem to endanger en:Wikipedia in any way (Gmaxwell's question).
I find it disheartening to see several users state that legal action against another user is unacceptable and calls for punishment. They seem not to know that this is a basic human right. Except for Golbez on IRC, nobody seems to have even remotely considered the possibility that there may be a good reason for legal action, and that it might be the behaviour of the other user that should be judged unacceptable.
Users Robotje and Art Unbound falsely suggest that a threat of physical violence was made. I am asking the Arbcom to deal with this. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block upon announcement of legal action elsewhere

I am kindly requesting a temporary unblock solely to enable my participation in this Arbcom procedure.

Statement by Carcharoth

I think what has happened here is that Guido has ended up in a limbo where no-one wants to do anything, or is able to review the case properly, because of the twin points of some events being on another wiki and the case involving legal threats (hence no-one will unblock until they are clear what is going on, but because this is spread out over two wikis, it is not clear what is going on). Possibly the Arbitration Committee may be able to intervene here and help clear up any confusion. I'd also like to repeat my point made at the ANI thread that in the era of single-user login, we need to be clearer how to handle cross-wiki disputes like this. Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank those who have responded so far. A few points that may need further discussion:

It is unrelated to this case, but from what I saw, some Dutch Wikipedia users and admins followed Guido from the Dutch Wikipedia to here (not Oscar, who has been here for ages, but some other accounts: User:JacobH and User:GijsvdL - see Talk:Melody Amber chess tournament). Again, in the era of single-user login, that needs to be addressed - sometimes this will be legitimate, at other times it may be importing a dispute and mixing up polices that may differ between different language editions of Wikipedia.
Jpgordon said: "in the context of what happened next -- a explicit legal threat on nl" - is this referring to the edit on en-wiki that bainer points to, or is this a different edit on nl-wiki, and if the latter, is it possible to link to a diff of that or not (eg. if it has since been removed or was conveyed by e-mail, for example)? ie. What was the evidence provided to the arbitration committee about what has taken place on nl-wikipedia? Was it provided directly by the Dutch Arbitration Committee as a whole, one member of that committee, or a Dutch Wikipedia editor?
It appears that User:Oscar has not been informed of this case. It is possible that he may feel unable to comment on-wiki, of course, but should he still be informed and can both he and Guido talk to the en-wiki arbitration committee privately to attempt to resolve this and be 100% clear about what is going on here?
The Dutch ArbCom statement appears to be at nl:Wikipedia:Arbitragecommissie/Zaken/Oscar V (I hope that is a permanent link). Does that have any bearing on things or not? I can't read Dutch, but User:Fram indicated, I think, that it contains references to the legal threats on nl-wikipedia that are being discussed here.
Guido is correct that Oscar mentions him here. I think the mentoring, attempted mentoring, attempt to reject the mentoring, or whatever, is part of all this, but again, I am unclear as to exactly what happened because things rapidly get to the point where you need to know Dutch to understand what has been happening here.
User:Art Unbound, who signed (I think - haven't checked the actual diff) as a member of the Dutch ArbCom (which he is) attempted to poll the Wikipedia community at the end of this ANI thread. I was the only one to respond (in retrospect, that looks a bit silly now, given that no-one else responded, and it also seems a strange way for a Dutch ArbCom member to go about things here - in hindsight, I should have said "please ask this as an en-wiki editor, not as a member of the Dutch Arbcom", but I didn't say this). Art Unbound then later posted: "I'm sorry for the intervention. My only motivation was sincere concern about this case." Which left me a bit nonplussed and uncertain as to what was going on. It just feels like there is lots going on in the background.
Finally, Guido's suggestion that false suggestions of threats of physical violence were made appear to relate to what Art Unbound said in that thread ("His mentor felt privately threatened as well.") and what User:Robotje said here: "...your threat can easily be seen as a physical threat unless you specify what you mean...". It is unclear where the line should be drawn here, and what extent it is acceptable for people to come here and attempt (on both sides) to explain in English what is going on in another language. It is difficult to get accurate verification in such cases, and it is hard to know who to believe. I'll repeat what I said at the ANI thread: "I am always uncomfortable relying on people to translate what has been said on other wikis - it is simpler to look at behaviour on just one wiki." An example of this is Fram, I think, providing an earlier and different translation of the post Guido made to Oscar.
Could the arbitration committee please advise whether they have obtained independent translations where needed?

Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been pointed to this edit by Guido. In my opinion, this shows he has failed to understand what Wikipedia:No legal threats means (Guido must realise that he cannot continue to edit if he intends to use, or is using, legal action as a way to rehabilitate himself and prove himself right and others wrong, or force mediation). As far as I can tell, Guido's editing relationship with the Dutch Wikipedia has broken down completely, and there is no way he can edit there until those issues are resolved. What he fails to realise is that he could have continued to edit here if he had steered clear of Oscar here. The trouble was that Oscar did start to interact with him back in May here (see here), and while I'm not sure how Oscar became aware of this (did someone invite him to comment?), that just feels wrong to me. There is a tradition of people being able to rehabilitate themselves on a different project. While extreme problems should be communicated cross-wiki, I think people shouldn't pursue disputes from one wiki to another, and that applies both to Guido and those who have been coming here or going there. There is a reason why different language wikipedias need to keep a degree of separateness. Guido is, in my opinon, perfectly capable of contributing constructively to en-Wikipedia if allowed to develop here as an editor, and encouraged to learn more about how en-Wikipedia works by moving into areas where his editing is less contentious. But while he continues to misunderstand Wikipedia:No legal threats, and while he continues to threaten to, or actually take, legal action, and bring threats of this to, or use mentions of such on, en-Wikipedia, he should remain blocked. Once the legal action is over or withdrawn, he can be unblocked. Carcharoth (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Extended 10:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davidruben

Several issues are raised by this RfA, not all necessarily directly reflect on GDB but on wider issues now that Single User Login been made available.

First most direct question is whether GDB's posting here in en:WP constituted a threat ? His posting to User:Oscar in Dutch[7], he translates[8] as "Oscar, I advise you to immediately undo my block on nl:Wikipedia. Consider this your final chance." Whilst I'll admit GDB and I have clashed before (I've blocked him previously and I think he views any postings by myself on his user page as hostile, eg see [9], even though in this situation I was I thought trying to be helpful). So to be fair I'm unconvinced his posting constituted a "legal" threat; although perhaps indeed a warning and perhaps not as well worded as it might have been ? (I have no knowledge of what had or had not been previously exchanged in nl:WP)
GDB indicated was trying to contact Oscar as required by rules at nl:WP but routes to do this blocked (GDB indicated on his talk page that apparently a block in nl:WP automatically results in both user talk page and wikipedia email barring too, which if true both seems harsh and somewhat catch-22). So does being legally blocked in one wikipedia make it inappropriate to contact the same admin in another xx.WP at all, and if so, does making any mention of legal block across at the other xx.WP constitute an extension of the legal threat here on en:WP (i.e. irrespective of how politely attempt at contact is phrased) ?
Does being apparently "legally blocked" in one wikipedia, mean that automatically should or should not be blocked in all languages ?
- i.e. whilst simple 3RR or other simple reason for block in one xx:WP is not normally justification for block in another wikipedia, are perceived "legal threats" any different in this regard (i.e. is the legal threat block just from the one area of activity in xx:WP or for the whole of the WikiMedia projects, given I suppose that one entity and the servers held in the one location) ?
- does the introduction of Single User Login alter blocking policy, or need further advice for admins in this regard. (NB GDB is active in just 2 wikiedias as I understand, and the rest of this section is not about him but seeks opportunity of this RfA for Arbcom clarification on the overall framwework and the somewhat uncertain issues surrounding SUL) What of an imaginary different user who gets temporarily blocked from multiple xx.WPs ?
  - May blocks be sequential extended based on overall activity in WP as a whole, or need to be glass-walled within individual zones?
  - What if such an imaginary editor were to be sequentially indef blocked from multiple xx:WPs. Given the new SUL, is there any global block that can or should be eventually applied ? If so then by any admins in one single xx:WP, or some new super-global multilingual (rules me out) admin group ? Or is it purely a matter for each xx:WP in turn to make a decision if activity in the one zone warrents a local ban ? David Ruben ^Talk 00:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Golbez

My only statement at this time is to respond to this: "Except for Golbez on IRC, nobody seems to have even remotely considered the possibility that there may be a good reason for legal action, and that it might be the behaviour of the other user that should be judged unacceptable." This is incorrect. I do not know the reason the legal proceedings have been brought, therefore I cannot possibly have an opinion on their validity. --Golbez (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Art Unbound

To begin with, it was a bad mistake of mine to comment at the Administrators' noticeboard at all, and even more to suggest that it was an initiative by the Dutch Arbcom, which it was not. I'm rarely if ever active on en.wikipedia, and wouldn't have if someone hadn't warned me about the case; moreover if I had signed as a standard user one could rightly have asked what on earth I had to do with it. As it stands I put the question more or less impulsively out of concern for the matter - both sides of it.

As for Guido's complaint of a breach of confidence by me, and his accusation above, I have to say that I have spoken privately on IRC with both Guido and Oscar on several occasions prior to this incident, with Guido in particular, and never shown him any lack of respect or partiality, instead treated him with all possible understanding. Guido seems to have forgotten all of this (I kept logs of them, in Dutch of course). On my part, I'm not aware of making anything public that wasn't already known through Guido himself. As you can see for yourself, I have not suggested that threats of physical violence by Guido were made towards Oscar. What I said was, that Oscar also felt privately threatened after Guido's legal action threats, which means to my mind, that Oscar feels unsafe in his private life knowing he has such an enemy. Guido did make an announcement to file a legal suit against Oscar officially as a private person, with copy to the Dutch Arbcom, in the sense of Wikipedia:No legal threats. Only after that, my opinion changed from neutral or even somewhat favorable to Guido, to disapproval. Nl.wikipedia does not have a Mediation Committee (at least not working), but I doubt if any mediator could get results with such pressure on. - Art Unbound (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

With all respect, Kirill, I fail to see how a legal dispute (which itself is disputed) occurring elsewhere means that en-wiki policy automatically comes into play. To use a reductio ad absurdum, if I were to sue a doctor for amputating my arm when I had only come in to pick up some medicines, and that doctor happened to edit Greek Wikipedia, would I be able to be blocked? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Privatemusings

I'd like to ask an arb, or uninvolved admin (or anyone who's interested!) to review this thread on Guido's talk page - where he says;

“

I have no desire to make a legal threat on en:Wikipedia, nor to engage in any aspects of external disputes here. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

”

I really hope that there might be a way forward for Guido on this wiki - who knows, in time this might help mend bridges elsewhere too....

My reading of the above is that Guido has understood not only that there can be no legal threats on wikipedia, but has also sees that engaging in any external dispute is not a good idea - and had committed not to do so. I'd certainly be happy for someone to unblock at this point on this wiki, and if I can offer further help I'd like to... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ps. I should add for transparency that I've dropped a note into User:Carcharoth's talk page making the same request... :-) - Privatemusings (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by CIreland

It could be argued with some degree of credibility then when one is placed in a position of having to interact with another in a context in which that individual has demonstrated a willingness to resort to (or to threaten) litigation, one's actions and attitudes may be coloured by knowledge of that fact. Whether the action or threatened action is justified is irrelevant for the effect on others is identical. This is one aspect of what is colloquially referred to as a 'chilling effect'. Speaking specifically, I would personally be very wary of taking any adminstrative or contentious action with regard to any issue involving Guido den Broeder because, although I have no idea what took place at nl.wikipedia, I am aware that he is willing to pursue legal avenues. In short, I am already slightly chilled. One of the chief reasons we have WP:NLT is to prevent exactly this effect (see the Rationale for the policy section). However, the policy does not presently cover an imported chilling effect such as this and so I would urge the Arbitration Committee to accept this case in order to decide whether an indefinite block is justified as the only effective means of ensuring an appropriate editing environment on the English Wikipedia. CIreland (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Fut.Perf

I can't see the issue here, it still seems an open-and-shut case to me. User A, on Wikipedia, has a dispute with User B, about Wikipedia, and tells them, on Wikipedia, that they have started litigation against them. Not just a threat, but actually going through with it. User A gets blocked. Simple as that. The fact that parts of these events were on another part of Wikipedia is irrelevant; if people think there is a policy to the contrary, that policy is obvious nonsense and needs scrapped. Legal issues are between real people, not between user accounts; the real people are the same on nl and on en; their interactions on en-wiki are quite obviously burdened with the same conflict now as on nl-wiki; the need to stop them from interacting on the wiki is the same here as there. I would have blocked him even had he not explicitly talked about the threat here on en-wiki. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Fram

If you give a final warning on en.wikipedia, and then start legal action, does it matter that the bulk of the dispute happened at nl.wikipedia? I don't think there is a precedent for this, but in the end, we have a user of en.wikipedia starting a legal case against another user of en.wikipedia, but where the reason for and the evidence of the legal case appeared on the nl.wikipedia (where both are / were most active). My post was here. It is completely unclear why Guido started this legal action by making a final post on en.wikipedia[10]: the Dutch Wikipedia advises to take such action off wikipedia and to use email: if Guido could not email oscar through the Dutch Wikipedia, he could just have used the email function on the English Wikipedia. The post on en.wikipedia was a needless escalation. As Guido admits here, the post on en.wikipedia was an essential part of the legal action in his opinion[11]. However, Guido claims that he was merely following policy[12], but it is unclear which policy that would be. Guido also claims that there are objections against the block[13], while no objections against the block as such had been raised. Mangojuice nicely summarized the situation in his unblock review[14]. His reply that there was no legal conflict yet when he posted on the en.wikipedia[15] is the kind of wikilawyering that was one of the reasons I started a RfC about Guido den Broeder earlier, and is in direct contradiction to his earlier post, where the post at en.wikipedia is according to Guido den Broeder an essential legal last step before the actual legal action starts. Meanwhile, he starts with personal attacks against User:Davidruben [16] (edit summary).

Finally, it may be quite telling how Guido den Broeder feels the need to add a "correct translation" of his statement[17]: "Oscar, I advise you to immediately undo my block on nl:Wikipedia. Consider this your final chance." The difference with my, presumably incorrect translation? "Oscar, I advise you to lift my block on the Dutch Wikipedia immediately. Consider this your final chance." Why would one add a correct translation if not to give the impresion that the previous translation was incorrect in some essential way? I see in his actions before and since the block no reasons to lift the block (apart from a temporary unblock to let him post here, if needed). Fram (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sandstein

I recommend that the request for arbitration be rejected. The contested block follows from a straightforward application of WP:NLT. As far as I can tell, it is undisputed that Guido den Broeder has, on the English Wikipedia, threatened another English Wikipedia user with legal action. He was correctly blocked for this. As Kirill notes below, nothing in WP:NLT limits the field of application of that policy to legal disputes arising out of conflicts on this Wikipedia. Sandstein 08:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mangojuice

I'm not really heavily involved here. I rejected Guido's unblock request on the basis that (1) there was a consensus at WP:ANI that blocking was appropriate, (2) Guido did make a legal threat against Oscar, and (3) Guido's history here has also been full of problems, and the best possible way to interpret what happened is that Guido was evading his block on .nl to send nasty messages to the blocking admin on this wikipedia. Even if no legal threats had been involved, I would have supported a block on that basis: cross-wiki harassment, especially of admins for their admin actions, is grossly unacceptable. Mangojuice^talk 12:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

This case started out here: User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder#Request_for_arbitration. See that for more background. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the committee needs translation, I suggest User:Wimvandorst. He id Dutch and speaks excellent English and is active on both wikis. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reject; I see no substantive case to arbitrate here. Both Guido and Oscar are contributors to the English Wikipedia, so WP:NLT applies to them, regardless of what their dispute might be about. An editor that has initiated or is intending to initiate legal proceedings against another editor in good standing is to be blocked for the duration of such proceedings; said editor can, of course, be unblocked as soon as any legal matters are resolved. Kirill ^(prof) 01:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. Policy is clear; legal disputes are to be conducted through legal channels, and if any of the parties engage in the legal dispute (or are unable to avoid engaging in the legal dispute) on the wiki then they will be blocked while the legal dispute is outstanding. The policy applies here because the substance of the dispute has been imported to here from the Dutch Wikipedia by Guido. --bainer (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Re Privatemusings: no, a dispute occuring entirely on another Wikimedia project will, in most cases, not be of concern to the English Wikipedia. It would be quite possible for two users engaged in a legal dispute relating to another project to continue editing here if they kept the dispute off the wiki and in the proper legal channels. Indeed, it would be quite possible for users engaged in a legal dispute arising from this very project to continue editing here if they kept it off the wiki. This leads partly to your second question: if the dispute is here, then whoever is participating in it here is to be blocked while the legal dispute is outstanding. If there are other parties who have participated in the dispute on this project, then they ought to be blocked also. --bainer (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is almost an interesting case. Maybe it needs to be taken; I haven't decided yet. One of ArbCom's explicit tasks is interpreting policy. WP:NLT is enwiki policy, not a Foundation policy; however, it doesn't say "no legal threats on Wikipedia", it says "no legal threats". Is this supportable in a more general case? If, say, Thebainer and I have an off-wiki dispute (for example, I might hire him some day for some legal help in the arts, and then not pay him, so writes me a dunning letter with dire warnings), it doesn't make much sense that WP:NLT would kick in. But do we actually need the policy to be modified so it's "no legal threats on or about Wikimedia-wide actions"? I suggest that might actually be a good generalization of the policy, given the emergence of SUL. ArbCom doesn't get to make that policy, though. But what it boils down to is the interpretation of the "this is your final chance" comment from Guido. In isolation, it could be argued (and I have argued) that the comment was vague and could have meant anything from "I'm going to hurt you" to "I'm going to sue you" to "I'm going to tell ~~Mommy~~ArbCom on you." But in the context of what happened next -- a explicit legal threat on nl -- it's quite hard to construe the "final chance" comment as anything but a legal threat; perhaps Guido might explain to us exactly what he meant by that utterance, and why we should not interpret it as a legal threat. The case is only worth taking if the comment was not in violation of WP:NLT. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. Future Perfect at Sunrise is right and Shoemaker's Holiday is wrong. A legal dispute concerning the editing of wikipedia brings in WP:NLT immediately it is mentioned here, regardless of whether it occurred on a different language project (and in my view, also if it concerns another Wikimedia project). The remark which Guido den Broeder made can only be interpreted as referring to the legal dispute and therefore imported it here; therefore the block is sound until any legal dispute is declared over. To answer, obiter, Shoemaker's Holiday's example, it would not bring in WP:NLT over a known legal dispute between editors which neither was unconnected with editing wikipedia so long as neither party referred to the dispute on-wiki. The key point about WP:NLT is not about the courts, but about life on-wiki: no user should use, or attempt to use, or threaten the use of, legal action to advance their position in any matter relating to Wikipedia. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. The particular details of this situation warrant an indefinite block on Wikipedia English. At this time, I'm uncertain that I support a blanket decision to always block users on Wikipedia English for legal threats made on other Foundation projects. This practice might allow a group of users to game the system to their advantage in some instances. We need to take these situations case by case, and allow for common newbie misunderstandings that are likely made worse in a cross-wiki situation. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bardcom

Initiated by EmpireForever (talk) at 10:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

EmpireForever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Bardcom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Crispness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

[18]
[19]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by EmpireForever

Since mid-March, Bardcom has done little on wikipedia except remove the term British Isles from as many articles as possible, and in the process also further the Irish nationalist perspective that Northern Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom and that Ireland is a country (diff diff ). The requests for comment filed in early April has done nothing to slow him down; from March 16 to the end of March 72 of his 197 articlespace edits were to remove the term or links to it, in April 160 of 302, in May 214 of 357, and in June 92 of 183.

As part of his campaign, he flouts policy at will. Witness the use of a self-published source (diff) where he replaces two reliable sources that say the Shell Guides covered the British Isles with his own unreliable source and claims the other editor has vandalised the article (diff). His sources must be used no matter how unreliable they are, and any reliable sources that source British Isles for any article where he thinks he is right must be ignored. He has made similar claims about his definition of vandalism which go far in excess of what vandalism actually is (diff diff diff). His "corrections" to articles are more often than not based on nothing more than his own ill-informed opinion. Witness his edits to different articles about the UK's rugby league Challenge Cup (diff diff), yet the BBC prove Bardcom's "correction" is actually a factual error (source). Witness his edits to Euchre, where he removes British Isles on the basis that he has never heard of the game (diff), or that mysterious "evidence" suggests that the game is only popular in southern England and Jersey (diff). Note the second diff is again a factual error should the game be popular in Jersey, as it is a Crown dependency not part of the United Kingdom. He will also claim to be removing OR, when he is just replacing British Isles with his own opinion (diff). His use of sources is as times that desperate that he claims the text describing an image added by the uploader at the time of uploading is a reliable source (diff).

This is not a content dispute, this is an editor conduct dispute. The Committee are not being asked to rule whether British Isles is an acceptable or unacceptable term, only if the editors are conducting themselves properly which Bardcom is not. He has a single-minded obsession to remove the term British Isles from wikipedia, and is going about it in a disruptive way, flouting policy, edit warring, claiming other editors are vandals, and is aided and abetted by others such as Crispness.

Reply to Bardcom's comment Prior attempts have been made at dispute resolution. The dispute is caused by your campaign to remove British Isles, and despite attempts by other editors it continues unabated. Therefore there should be no need for me to repeat the steps that others have taken, when those have already failed. Your comments are misleading and untrue.

"The first reference, a previous RfA, shows that *all* the disputed edits were vindicated - and have still been upheld." - (diff) Jersey is not part of the United Kingdom, and even the source you added says British Isles (source). If your "disputed edit" was vindicated and upheld, why does the current version say "British Isles" (link). Talk page discussion about that edit and others.

The noticeboard links are to show that your campaign and its effects are still discussed on noticeboards after the request for comment, therefore showing disruption is still being caused.

"This editor, while trying to create an RfA about my behavior, has singularly failed to point out any poor behavior on my part". Pardon? Use of self published source (diff). Claiming an editor adding British Isles when reliably sourced is a vandal (diff). Claiming the Challenge Cup includes amateur teams from either the "United Kingdom" (diff) or "England, Scotland and Wales" (diff) when that is nothing more than your opinion, and a factual error (source). Claiming Northern Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom (diff) (diff). Claiming text added to an image is a reliable source (diff).

Reply to jpgordon's comment Other editors have tried to resolve this dispute before me and failed, am I supposed to repeat their failure? A previous request for comment has not solved this, will another request for comment filed by a different editor be any different?

Reply to Scolaire's comment Change my name to the name of any editor of your choosing and the dispute is unchanged.

Is Bardcom still removing British Isles after the request for comment? Yes
Is Bardcom using unreliable sources? Yes
Is Bardcom making changes using no sources at all, thereby adding factual errors to articles? Yes
Is Bardcom claiming editors who add British Isles are vandals? Yes
Is the dispute still a problem? Yes

Statement by Bardcom

This is an RfA from a disgruntled editor, who has taken out a single-use editing account, solely for the purpose of trying to discredit my editing. As a new editor who has obviously edited in the past and is familiar with Wikipedia policies, I am suspicious as to the real identity. Who is User:EmpireForever really?

No previous attempts at dispute resolution. This editor claims that prior attempts were made at dispute resolution. The examples posted are at odds with this claim and this RfA. If anything, it shows how I make a real attempt to discuss my edits, but that other editors are more concerned with ad hominen attacks, personal comments, insults, incorrect assumptions, and snide insinuations. A bit like the language used in this RfA actually....

The first reference, a previous RfA, shows that *all* the disputed edits were vindicated - and have still been upheld.
The 2nd reference is a complain that I filed against User:TharkunColl for looking at my contributions and blindly reverting my edits while refusing to comment on the reverts or to discuss the reasons. This is an example of *my* attempts at dispute resolution which were spurned, and my constant willingness and openness to discuss any and all of my edits.
The 3rd reference is related to the 2nd, and concerns pretty much a restart of the behaviour discussed then. As a result, User:TharkunColl began to explain his edits in the edit summaries.
The 4th reference is also related to the 2nd and 3rd, but I wasn't a primary participant. Not sure why this is here as an example of "previous dispute resolution". Anyone?
The last example - I'm very glad that this is included. It's laughable that this is used as an example of dispute resolution. This is an ad hominen attack posted by User:EmpireForever on my Talk page resulting in me posting a warning to his Talk page here (which he promptly removed). User:EmpireForever then tried to recruit an admin that he hoped would be sympathetic and posted this on the Talk page of User:C.Fred. This resulted in his friendly admin posting a stern warning here to his Talk page.

An RfA should only be taken out as a last step in dispute resolution. This editor has not pursued any other avenues, and the evidence points to a disgruntled editor, who has taken out a single-use editing account, solely for the purpose of trying to discredit my editing. I have always been fair and open. I have always been polite, and I make an effort to WP:AGF and to invite discussions. Many many times, I engage in discussion and always explain my edits. Many of my edits are challenged, resulting in polite discussions and a consensus being reached. This editor, while trying to create an RfA about my behavior, has singularly failed to point out any poor behavior on my part, and this RfA only serves to highlight his own righteous behavior.

--Bardcom (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved User:Scolaire

The initiator is not only an SPA[21] but one with a highly dubious username in the context of his complaint. If I were an arbitrator I would not touch this one with a barge-pole. Scolaire (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CarterBar

I come to this case as primarily a user of Wikipedia rather than an editor. I do edit occasionally, but my main interest is using the encyclopedia as a resource for geographical information. Having witnessed the edits of Bardcom over the last few months it is with regret that I have to say that I'm finding it increasingly difficult to accept the authenticity of Wikipedia.

The summary of Bardcom's activities given at the RfC Statement of dispute from April this year describe the issue well, and the comments are even more valid today. The relentless removal of the term British Isles continues unabated. The following examples of Bardcom's edits are taken from the last few days - a period during which he has been particularly active. Most edit summaries do not reflect what is happening; for example this one [22] from 7 July. The edit summary is merely "Added wikilinks to appropriate kingdoms". Rarely, if ever does the edit summary state "remove British Isles", but invariably that is what happens. This example shows the elimination of content simply because it contains the term he doesn't like [23]. In this case the content had been removed by Bardcom some time ago, and when an IP attempted to put it back Bardcom gave this as an edit summary; "Removed OR/vandalism from anon ip editor from BASF Germany". He also placed a vandalism warning on the IP's page. The IP is shared and the result of the warning led to this dialogue on his talk page.

Bardcom has many reasons for eliminating British Isles, but none for re-instating it. I have failed to find a single edit where he has added the term. He states it should only be used in a geographic context, so why did he attempt this edit [24]. In this case we have the elimination of geographic fact. Bardcom is generally unrelenting in his arguments as to why British Isles should not be used. Yesterday (7 July) he attempted to remove the term (and several useful references) from GENUKI. This caused a protracted, heated discussion on the Talk page which included the following comment from one of the article's main editors; "...Please note that your initial edit today removed factual material from the description - there is stuff in GENUKI which is common to the whole area, as well as stuff on each of the smaller units, but your initial edit swept this aside as well as removing what I consider to be helpful references to examples.". Another example is Shipping Forecast and the related article Radio 4 UK Theme. Here is Bardcom's edit [25]. His edit summary was "Removed unnecessary reference. RTE provides warnings around Ireland". His reasoning here is completely irrational. The pertinent fact in this article and other related articles is that the Shipping Forecast sea areas do actually surround the British Isles, but even with a reference from the UK Met Office stating that very fact, Bardcom's actions initiated another heated debate and an edit war.

One of the most egregious reasons given by both Bardcom and Crispness for removing British Isles is that the term must apply to all entities. So if it is said that someone gave lecture tours in the British Isles, this is removed unless there's proof that they gave lectures in England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. This point-of-view is akin to saying to a visitor to Europe from North America, that they haven't actually visited Europe because they haven't set foot in Iceland, Lithuania, Greece and so on. Here's an example of this tactic from User:Crispness [26]. Apparently Pytheas never went to Ireland so, according to Crispness he didn't visit the British Isles. There are very many more instances of this behaviour mainly from Bardcom but also from Crispness.

I invite the arbitrators to examine fully the talk pages and archived talk pages of Bardcom. In so doing they will note many disputes and a catalogue of disruptive behaviour, all of which is compromising the integrity of the encyclopedia. One final point; not all of Bardcom's British Isles eliminations are wrong. Some are justified, but mostly they aren't. Here's one that is valid [27].

Statement by Crispness

Now that there is finally some evidence against me, I thought I'd better make a statement here. As far as I can see the evidenced charges laid against me are that I sometimes edit Wikipedia. I plead guilty. When I see something wrong in a page I'm reading (in article space at least) I try and fix it. So when I read that Pytheas visited the British Isles, and I knew that to be wrong, I changed it to read what I thought to be the correct information. I thought that was what we were supposed to do. If I'm wrong about that can someone point me to the guideline that says so. If the situation was reversed and it had said that Pytheas visited England, and I 'knew' that actually he had visited Ireland, is User:CarterBar suggesting that I shouldn't fix that? Sorry, but I must be missing some logic in this argument. I'd appreciate that when scandalous accusations are made about my editing behaviour, that they are accompanied by evidenced diffs, or not made at all.

Statement by William M. Connolley

I've just blocked Bardcom for 3h for repeatedly removing the words "British Isles" from River Thames frost fairs. He does indeed seem to have an obsession with this, and is going to end up in trouble if he can't moderate~~. But I can't see why this is an arbcomm matter~~ William M. Connolley (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carcharoth

I posted a detailed timeline at ANI for the incident that William M. Connolley (WMC) mentioned above that led to the block of Bardcom. I'm placing a version of that here as well in case it is of use:

The block looks fine, but I think what might have helped is if WMC had explicitly said what edit he blocked Bardcom for. I presume it was this edit. I've checked and I can't find anywhere where WMC explicitly stated which edit came after the warning and before the block. Sure, Bardcom should have known that it was that revert that was against the warning WMC gave, but for others looking at this, WMC could have been just a little bit more specific. The timing is actually important, if we look at the following sequence:

17:34 (WMC's warning to Bardcom) [WMC gave this warning on an article talk page, rather than on the user talk page as well or instead of the article talk page]
17:38 (Bardcom's templated warning of WMC) [This shows Bardcom is now aware of the warning WMC had given him]
17:40 (Bardcom's comment on the article talk page in response to the comment where WMC warned him) [This is another indication that Bardcom was aware of the warning]
17:40 (Bardcom's revert of WMC's edit) [Note that the timestamp is the same as the talk page edit, but it does come after that edit in Bardcom's contribs log, so even without the template Bardcom posted to WMC's talk page, WMC could argue that Bardcom was aware of the warning. This is important because if Bardcom had not templated WMC, and Bardcom had reverted at the article before reading and editing the talk page, Bardcom could have quite legitimately argued that he hadn't seen the warning yet. This is another reason for leaving warnings on user talk pages. It is a better way to ensure that (in this case) WMC had got Bardcom's attention.]
17:43 (WMC blocks Bardcom)
17:44 (WMC notifies Bardcom of his block) [WMC should really have given a diff here to say what edit he was blocking Bardcom for]
17:45 (WMC reverts Bardcom's edit to the article)
17:49 (WMC adds a statement at the RfArb) [A bit of a brief statement, but enough to start off with, as presumably WMC would have been happy to answer any questions anyone had, and later did so at ANI]

I think WMC should have give the actual diff of the edit that he blocked Bardcom for, and included that diff in the notice he left on Bardcom's talk page. Other than that, as I said before, it all looks fine, but possibly the more detailed timeline might make things clearer for those reading this. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kendrick7

This is rather silly. They haven't been the British Isles since 1919. That Americans still lazily refer to them as such is simply a reflection of our own ignorance of European history. I applaud any editor fighting such ignorance; if this appears to be an "obsession" it's only because the anachronism is so widespread among our pages. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bastun

A quick read of the article and its associated articles and talk pages clearly shows User:Kendrick7 is incorrect - the term is still in use worldwide, including by a minority on the island of Ireland (and I've just reverted his change to the lede of the BI article making it 'past tense').

On the RfA itself - User:Bardcom does seem to have an issue with the term and does try to eliminate it from many articles, some removals being dubious, some being valid, in my opinion. But its a content dispute and certainly not yet appropriate for an RfA. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Party 2}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/5/0/0)

I have not yet looked in detail but I would draw your attention to the previous case on The Troubles which allowed admins to enforce on editors who disrupt articles about the conflict between Britain and Ireland. Some of the behaviour here might fall within its scope. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Decline. It is essentially a content matter and while there have been revert wars over whether 'British Isles' should be put in or taken out of a particular article, I don't think it has got to the level warranting an arbitration case. For what it's worth, on the merits of whether to use 'British Isles', the use of the term to include Ireland is strongly disliked by most Irish sources and in my view it should be substituted by another term if it is possible to do so without changing the meaning. Relevant policy and guidelines: WP:NPOV (wrong to endorse the point of view that Ireland is one of the British Isles) and WP:RS (use terms as defined by reliable sources). Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. I've little interest in taking on an arbitration case started by an editor who appeared barely a week ago. Arbitration is the final step, not the first, and an editor who has been here such a short time cannot have undertaken sufficient preliminary steps in conflict resolution. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward accept, but still could be convinced to let the community to try and sort it out. My first impression is that we have user conduct issues that likely are not going away unless someone addresses them. The problems may be based on misunderstanding of policy rather than uncontrollable user conduct requiring a topic or site ban, so a case may be premature. But a RFC happened in April and here we are. So accept. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of wikistalking, misuse of edit summaries, labeling another user's edits as vandalism are several problems I noticed when taking a quick look. Likely that these issues are preventing the resolution of the content dispute. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reject. This is primarily a content dispute. We would only intervene in this type of dispute where there was evidence that an editor was deliberately editing contrary to an established consensus, and a glance at the relevant talk pages, and the variety of opinions expressed in the request for comment, suggest that there is no such established consensus. I concur with PhilKnight when he asked in the request for comment, "shouldn't this be a content RfC?" --bainer (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, per Bainer's comment. James F. (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as essentially a content matter. Paul August ☎ 16:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. 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. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

Current requests

Request for appeal: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist

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

Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
username2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Lapsed Pacifist

I'd like to appeal this ban, because it was decided upon and imposed while I was on an extended break. I was not given the opportunity to confront my accusers (whose exaggerations, distortions and outright falsehoods I was therefore unable to refute), and was presented with a fait accompli upon my return to Wikipedia.

Statement by uninvolved One Night In Hackney

I can only assume this is some sort of bizarre joke on the part of Lapsed Pacifist, given he is a tendentious editor in virtually every area he edits.

His ban on articles relating to the Northern Ireland conflict was evaded when he made contentious edits to Black and Tans, such as adding Category:Terrorism in the United Kingdom (which he quickly changed to Category:British terrorists), then trying to add his newly-created (and since deleted) Category:State terrorism in the United Kingdom, all based on nothing more than his POV. He is single minded in pushing an anti-British, anti-Israeli, anti-American, anti-almost anything POV. For example relating to Americans in Iraq, he changes "private military contractors" to "mercenaries" (or similar) which is a major violation of NPOV and not supported by the cited source, and edit warring to retain the term - [28] [29]. Sourcing that "The controversial use of white phosphorus by US forces has resulted in a large increase in birth deformities in the city" and edit warring to retain the sentence and sources. It was sourced by this, this, and this none of which make the link as a 100% fact, merely that there are calls for an investigation (eg, the sources state "Families in Fallujah are calling for an investigation into the rise of birth defects after the US used phosphorus over the Iraqi city in 2004", "Families in the Iraqi city of Fallujah are calling for an investigation into their claims of a rise in the number of birth defects", "The evidence is anecdotal because there are no records from the era of Saddam Hussein to compare their stories against", "The indications remain anecdotal, in the absence of either a study, or any available official records") -[30] [31]. Describing Israeli settlements as "colonies" and edit warring to retain the term - [32] [33] [34] [35] (many more diffs available for "colonies"). Claiming the Garda Síochána (Irish police) engaged in extrajudicial punishment with Shell to Sea protesters (where he has a conflict of interest) despite it being complete original research on his part, and edit warring to retain it - [36] [37] [38] [39] [40].

That's from a quick look at his contribs, and there's many, many more controversial edits especially in the Israel/Palestine area and articles relating to the war in Iraq. What ArbCom (or any admins reading this) should really consider is whether Lapsed Pacifist should be banned from Wikipedia as a whole, not whether his current ban from certain articles should be upheld.

Statement by GRBerry

Blocked twice in the last month for violating this restriction and in that time put on notice[41] for problematic editing under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Does not to me appear to be demonstrating that they would be editing without problems in this area. This restriction is broader than the discretionary sanctions in The Troubles arbcomm case, so it is not an adequate substitute. See the WP:AE archives related to the two recent blocks: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive23#Lapsed Pacifist and the second section on that page with identical title. GRBerry 13:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rockpocket

My block appears to be one that precipitated this appeal, so I will comment to explain that. I noticed that request for Arbitration Enforcement at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive23#Lapsed Pacifist. I concluded that his edits [42][43] to were in violation of the remedy: Lapsed Pacifist banned from affected articles. LP protests that the Black and Tans article did not directly relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland. While the Black and Tans were clearly operational only prior to the creation of Northern Ireland, I interpreted that articles "related in any way to the conflict in Northern Ireland" would include about the recent history of conflict that resulted in the creation of the constituent country. If the edits had been non controversial then I would probably had overlooked it, but they content was clearly a continuation of the "habitual point of view editing" that was found during the ArbCom. If the remedy is to be upheld, I would ask that ArbCom clarify whether they meant that remedy to be interpreted narrowly, or to include articles that relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland more generally. Rockpocket 02:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

No statement by Lapsed_Pacifist saying the reason that editing restrictions should be removed. On my first review, I'm not seeing any reason for the sanction to be lifted at this time. Right now, the community is dealing with current issues. I see no reason to intervene at this time. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Flo. Paul August ☎ 13:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman

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

WJBscribe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Shoemaker's Holiday notified

Statement by WJBscribe

I would like ArbCom to clarify whether this remedy precludes the desysopped user from requesting adminship through the usual channels:

"4) Vanished user's adminship will be waived at this time, and the case provisionally closed. Vanished user may regain his sysop access by application to the Committee, upon demonstration of six months editing in compliance with communal norms and conduct standards. If regained, he will then be placed on parole with regard to both conduct and admin tool use for a further period of six months."

It has been noted that the Committee voted for this provision in preference to one which expressly provided for a return of adminship through the usual means.
I would also appreciate guidance for future reference as to how bureaucrats should interpret ArbCom remedies that are silent as to the availabiliy of the usual remedies. I note that it is usually the Committee's practice to deal with this matter expressly. For instance the relevant remedy of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar states: "He may apply to have them reinstated by appeal to the Committee, but not through the usual means" and that in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tango states "Tango may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee." However, the Committee is also sometimes silent on this issue, for example in the remedies at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan. There seems to have been no view that MONGO is prevented from applying through RfA due to those remedies. It seems to me logical to presume that Committee intends the community to be able to restore access unless it expressly says otherwise but as other interpretations have been put forwards in discussion surrounding this recent withdrawn RfA, I think clarification would be wise.
Regards, WjBscribe 02:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to Thebainer

As I pointed out above, it is not the case that Arbitration remedies are always specific on this point. Take for example these remedies. I would appreciate guidance here, are the two editors in that case (and others where ArbCom does not specify whether or not the usual means are available) able to apply for their access to be reinstated via the usual means? WjBscribe 05:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "the remedy here did not have that ambiguity", I'm sorry but I find that comment fairly insulting. I came here asking ArbCom to clear up the ambiguity in one of their decisions. I think my reasons for doing so are fairly clear: in the two places this has arisen [44] [45] the community seems to have been pretty split in interpreting whether an RfA is permissible. I would not, as a bureaucrat, have felt the remedy was clear enough that the RfA was a defacto nullity. It also obviously was not unambiguously clear to Shoemaker's Holiday that he could not request the tools via the usual means or he would not have accepted the RfA nomination. It is rather frustrating for the body making decisions to also announce that these decisions are not ambiguous after they have seen the community struggle to agree on the correct interpretation. I do not think my request here is complicated or unreasonable, I simply want answers to two questions: (1) is Shoemaker's Holiday able to request adminship via the normal means and (2) what guidance can ArbCom offer bureaucrats in interpreting their decisions where they choose not to specifically mention whether or not the usual means are available? So far I distill the following from your answer:

(1) No.

(2) If ArbCom is totally silent as to any means for regaining adminship, the usual means are permitted. If however the Committee makes a provision for appeal as a means of reinstatement but says nothing about the usual means, they are excluded.

Am I understanding correctly and can you see why it was a bit much to expect the community to intuit this? WjBscribe 15:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

If we're going to review this case, now's as good as a time as any to look over the problems of it.

In it, a 2-month-old block was the cause of a rush to voting in 12 hours, before I provided any evidence, and a refusal to grant another couple weeks so that I could sit my exams.

In one finding of fact, evidence was researched and created by the Arbcom that did not appear in the evidence page. (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Proposed_decision#Vanished_user.27s_use_of_administrative_tools) While not itself a problem, this was followed by the arbitrators ignoring repeated comments by several people that the diffs did not support the statements made based on them. (first thread second thread third thread, see also the (now deleted) Request for comment the Arbcom asked to be run.)

This is a particular problem when the person edits under their real name, like I did, and has a fairly unique name.

In one part, the one arbitrator oversighted a diff where I volunteered to give up my sysop for health reasons, but did not forward it on to the other arbitrators. As the stress-levels caused by the case made my health problems far worse - I moved from ill, but just about coping to having to drop out for a semester of university - this attempt to protect me from others learning about my state of health backfired severely.

I would like a clarification of how the arbcom thinks these problems happened, how they plan to avoid them in future, and, if possible, an apology for the severe negative effects on my life.

Thank you, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to bainer's statement below, After that case, I want as little to do with arbcom as possible, and would decline any re-sysop that ties me to the people involved with that case for 6 months. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

Bainer, please note the following:

From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#MONGO_is_desysopped: For misuse of his administrative tools and failure to relate appropriately with other administrators, MONGO is desysopped. Passed 6 to 0 at 07:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MONGO 2 ran 22 January 2008 to 26 January 2008

No statement disallowing RFA; subsequent RFA took place without special appeal to ArbCom. Durova^Charge! 05:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bainer, what announcement did ArbCom ever make about that? And why didn't it either clarify the Seabhcan case or expressly forbid resysopping through RFA in the Matthew Hoffman case? The rest of us aren't privy to the Committee's private deliberations; we cannot intuit a secret change that abandons existing precedent. Durova^Charge! 08:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the arbitrators who have commented below, you fail to explain the reasons why Shoemaker's Holiday merits prohibition from RFA (which you never made explicit until now). The only reason I have ever seen put forward privately or publicly for this extraordinary prohibition regards his own health, and he has disclosed that to me freely and fully himself. Furthermore, if this is the rationale, his adamant desire is that the Committee refrain from further interference in a matter none of you are qualified to deal with and that you have consistently mishandled. Durova^Charge! 01:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar:

For showing consistently poor judgment in performing administrative actions, Alkivar's (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated by appeal to the Committee, but not through the usual means.

When you previously forbade normal RFA, you made that explicit. You're changing the rules as you go. If I'm mistaken, show me one announcement--anywhere onsite--stating when this supposed innovation in the decision formula came into existence. The Alkivar case closed only three months before Matthew Hoffman. Durova^Charge! 01:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New arbitrators and passers-by please refer to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vanished_user: the Committee acted in open defiance of a solid community consensus; this person should not have been desysopped. Durova^Charge! 18:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this juncture I wish to remind the Committee it has been my opinion for many months that the Matthew Hoffman case was the worst-handled arbitration I have ever seen, and rather than remedy any of its numerous errors the Committee appears intent upon compounding them. Hollow apologies mean little; I would like to see for starters Charles Matthews withdraw the repeated personal attacks he posted to the case pages. Ideally you ought to be vacating this case because it was requested in a non-emergency situation with no prior attempt at dispute resolution--thus outside your mandate.

Virtually the only other recent case that closed with a prohibition on RFA was the Alkivar case; the off-wiki evidence regarding Alkivar was entirely or almost entirely my own submission and I assembled it from public records. I have been never been under any pledge of confidentiality regarding that material. Until now I have chosen to handle it with discretion because of its sensitive nature; that does not oblige me to remain silent. Durova^Charge! 23:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GRBerry

Some of those commenting seem not to have noticed that the committee has pointed out that its decision was based in part on private information submitted to the committee by the affected user. The user also posted what I hope was only a summary of that information on Wikipedia at one time (and a commentator above notes that it has since been oversighted), and even that summary, which I recall is material and significant. Editors who don't have access to the private data, which I probably don't have in full, really don't know what they are talking about. So 1) passers by can't usefully comment and 2) there really is private data that should keep this out of the communitys hands unless (which I think would be a really really really bad idea) the affected editor chooses to release that data publicly. GRBerry 18:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Shoemaker's Holiday

I have post-viral fatigue syndrome, rather severe, and this causes occasional periods, up to a month long, where I am largely bedridden or nearly bedridden, with the corresponding difficulty in responding in a timely manner. The arbcom case was opened after Charles Matthews contacted me in one such period about a block, then again in a later, second period. Having forgotten about the first messages after I came out of the bad period, I felt I should make some effort to respond, even if I was still in a bad period. However, because I was severely ill, made a hash of it.

As I had such health issues, I offered to Arbcom to resign my adminship, if they felt that these occasional difficulties meant that I would be unable to fulfil admin actions in a timely manner. Flonight felt that it was a bad idea to admit my illness under my own name, and oversighted it. At the time, I found her statement convincing.

What I certainly did not expect was for everyone to take this information, and then, by the way they discussed it (which, particularly as arbcom itself recommended its suppression, one would think you would know better than to bring it up in the first place), created a strong impression that I had some deep, dark secret that meant that I could never be trusted. If you say that there is secret evidence, and this secret evidence means I shouldn't be an admin, then it makes it sound like I had, say, intentionally acted to damage Wikipedia. The fact of the matter is I made some bad judgements when severely ill, and could not guarantee that I would not fall ill again.

While I don't blame GRBerry, I really feel that Arbcom's actions with this evidence - taking an admission that someone was severely ill, suppressing it, then, when questioned about me, referring to secret evidence that they can't go into, only served to make me look bad - far worse than if the information was in the open. I have a severe case of post-viral fatigue syndrome, developed after I caught flu while working as a farm labourer, and was literally dragged out of bed to help with the milking, making the illness far worse. I would question whether that rises to the level of evidence, let alone how it was treated - as secret evidence that meant I should not be an admin. Worse, you are taking an admission of my health in December, and using it to say I should not be an admin due to secret evidence in July. The fact of the matter is I am doing far better now than I was then.

I hereby ask for this case to be reopened, every finding of fact rewritten in order to honestly state what you made me look far worse by attempting to conceal - acting as if I was part of a sneaky campaign to gain power, instead of simply an admin with poor guidance as to what conflict of interest was, and who made a few bad decisions under the effects of illness.

I would also ask an apology for forcing me into a corner whereby the only option available to me was to make private matters public, lest I end up looking far worse.

Being ill is not a violation of Wikipedia policy, and forcing me to reveal full details of my illness as a requirement for a request for adminship violated my privacy with no Wikipedia policy justification. Indeed, you should never have talked about secret evidence, as noone would ever presume that such comments did not relate to unrevealed policy violations by me. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

While I did not participate in that case, I can say that desysopping remedies are always explicit about the methods by which the person concerned can reapply to be a sysop, identifying that it may be by the "usual means", by application to the Committee, or by some other means. In this case the method specified was "by application to the Committee, upon demonstration of six months editing in compliance with communal norms and conduct standards", and as such a request for adminship is not permitted within that decision. I would suggest that if people disagree with the decision they should appeal it. --bainer (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Re Wjbscribe and Durova's point about the Seabhcan case, that was the last case to include the old, ambiguous wording regarding desysopping. Beginning in early 2007, cases have expressly identified the method for reapplying. I believe Darwinek was the first case to do so. In any event, regardless of any ambiguity in old cases (that may or may not need resolving now), the remedy here did not have that ambiguity, as it was express about the methods available. --bainer (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Re Durova, I can't speak to what the then members of the Committee were thinking nineteen months ago in the Seabhcan case. All I was saying is that in every single case since then involving a desysopping, the Committee has expressly identified the methods by which the relevant user could re-apply for sysophood. I don't think there was any "announcement", it's just been included explicitly in all the remedies passed since. --bainer (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Re WjBscribe, apologies if I caused offence; I now realise you've been interpreting the remedies to permit everything that is not absolutely prohibited, instead of only permitting what is expressly allowed. The answers you've distilled are essentially correct:

No, a request for adminship is not available in this case;
If the remedy says that the usual means are allowed, then the usual means are allowed; if it does not, then they are not.

As for cases that are silent as to methods, well, there haven't been any since the Seabhcan case in December 2006. It may be that we need to go back now and clarify those, but every case in the past eighteen months has been quite explicit. --bainer (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the remedy as written was to require the user to contact ArbCom prior to gaining administrator tools again by any means. The Committee now does this whenever the Committee makes a decision from information that is not available to the whole community. In every case, contacting the Committee prior to starting a RFA can be useful since frequently we have knowledge about ongoing issues that may not be obvious. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The case was handled in an extremely disjointed manner that added extra stress for Shoemaker's Holiday at a time when he least needed it. For that I'm extremely sorry. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Shoemaker's Holiday: I'm very sorry for the pain and distress this situation has caused you. The removal of your administrator privileges was well warranted — but your case could certainly have been handled better — for that I'm sorry and for that I apologize. Paul August ☎ 17:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight says it well. I have added below some comments on the "by application" style of remedy.
In the present case, the problem was, there was genuine and repeated misuse of the tools. The other problem was, the case was badly handled, disjointed, it is hard to see any kind of satisfactory-ness to it, and the resulting process was unfair to a stressed user who needed above all good and steady handling. Whilst less could have gone wrong, it is not clear whether the end result would have been much different in terms of remedy provisions. The decision was probably right, but despite many people trying to be accomodating, the mishandling led to a lot of avoidable anger and upset that didn't help the user at all, and that aspect deserves an apology.
The condition of "by application to the Committee" in this case was for multiple reasons: ⁽¹⁾ the user had disclosed personal matters which directly pertains to appropriate use of the tools (it would not have been fair to him to force disclosure as a prerequisite to regain the tools, nor fair to the community to allow it to be hidden if he sought RFA); ⁽²⁾ there was repeated mis-use which is not acceptable to allow to recur and regardless of good intentions, without clear conditions and help, he might accidentally do so again in the course of time, under stress; ⁽³⁾ he might not get a fair chance at the tools back (both usual admin concerns, and also other users with concerns, in the areas he edits); ⁽⁴⁾ he might be over-stressed by RFA and have problems with the process. It was for these reasons -- and it should be emphasized heavily, to protect and help mostly him -- that this remedy was stated to be "by application".
That said his feelings are understandable. If he emailed us that he wished to take his chance with the community, and is able to disclose to the community without minimizing, the relevant information that others would need to make a fully informed communal decision (or will accept conditions that will fully cover this problem area, or will take his chances on his future conduct without any "safety net"), then I would endorse a committee decision to allow it. The protective conditions (parole) specified in the remedy would hold either way since those are intended to protect others rather than the user in question, by making it easier to take action if he did slip back after regaining them.
FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (instigator)
PHG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified: [46]

Statement by Jehochman

We have a big problem in that PHG's convincing looking citations can fool a majority of good faith editors. In attempting to clean up the article Buddhism and Christianity that I found listed at the fringe theory noticeboard, I spotted a familiar a pattern of original research, original maps that have no sources, and copyright violations in the form of book cover uploads. Sure enough, I found PHG had heavily edited the article. This is exactly the same pattern as we saw before.

Regrettably, PHG's mentorship with Coren (talk · contribs) has ended. Coren appears to have been inactive since May 8, 2008. The mess of damaged articles remains. Attempts to fix this mess meet with resistance because editors are unaware of the problems. I have been asked to prove, yet again, that sources have been misrepresented. Please excuse me for not having 8 hours to drive to a research library, find an obscure book, and go through the article line by line to yet again demonstrate the same problem that was demonstrated at arbitration.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhism and Christianity, in particular, this edit: [47]. I am at a loss for how to solve these problems. Could the Committee please review this situation and provide guidance. Perhaps an additional remedy is needed to expedite clean up of the messes. Ideally, we need the ability to blank, revert, or delete articles to a state that is untainted by misrepresented sources. It is neither efficient nor scalable to have to go through all the same arguments as we faced at arbitration for each instance of the problem. By now, there should be a presumption that PHG's information on East-West cultural connections from the time period prior to arbitration is not reliable. Additionally, I think PHG needs to stand aside and not obstruct clean up efforts in any way. Jehochman ^Talk 18:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick7: Click Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance to see all the time that has thus far been invested in dispute resolution. Jehochman ^Talk 18:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pattern in this article is very obvious, given my close attention to the prior case. Regrettably, uninvolved editors like yourself generally don't see the problems on quick inspection. This is the great danger of subtle misrepresentation and insertion of original research. As you point out, PHG has not touched the article for a long time, but it has not been fixed yet because the damage is not obvious. I really do not have the time to engage in lengthy discussion on each and every tainted article while attempting to fix it. There has to be a better way. Jehochman ^Talk 19:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about stubbing the article, but as you can see from the AfD discussion, blanking and starting from scratch has significant opposition. I do not think changing the forum of discussion from AfD to the article talk page would have helped in any way. At least AfD helps bring in some fresh points of view. Jehochman ^Talk 19:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a hard problem, which is why I have come here for advice. Jehochman ^Talk 20:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, please stop with the straw man logical fallacy. I have not suggested banning PHG here. Could you look a bit more closely at some of PHG's recent contribution. Actually go get the source and look at it. For just one example, Siege of Bangkok, mentioned by PHG below. I have been told by somebody who speaks French that one of PHG's sources is a book by Michael Smithies of translations of first hand accounts by French soldiers and missionaries. Book review This bears checking. It looks a lot like PHG is sill using Wikipedia to publish original research. The past ruling may be insufficient to solve the problem. I'd like to see mandatory mentorship for PHG's editing in all areas of the encyclopedia. Jehochman ^Talk 12:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for suggesting places to list articles for cleanup, and I like Shell Kinney's idea that PHG needs to find a new mentor. This should be mandatory, and include all editing. The mentor needs to speak French. Jehochman ^Talk 12:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few articles to the list at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. Should we move that list to a dedicated page, such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Checklist? The list is associated with the arbitration case, and may include things that are not closely related to Franks and Mongols. 16:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for temporary restriction

Per Mathsci's report below, I request PHG to be blocked until a mentor is appointed. It is not fair to those cleaning up his messes in article space to allow this pattern of editing to continue without any sort of restraint. PHG is using up a huge amount of volunteer time. Jehochman ^Talk 00:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:PHG

I think I contributed only about 15% of this article Christianity and Buddhism, most of my contribution being historical background (Indo-Greeks etc...) and photographs. My last contribution gets back to August 30, 2007, about a year ago [48]. Just look at the state and length of the article, even before I contributed anything [49]. This is old stuff, and I will be glad to discuss if there are any specific issues to be addressed. We're all here to contribute content as best as we can. For some of my latest contributions, please see France-Thailand relations or Siege of Bangkok, which I am very proud to contribute. Cheers. PHG (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My articles France-Thailand relations or Siege of Bangkok do use as one of their sources the very interesting Michael Smithies' Three Military Accounts of the 1688 revolution in Siam ISBN 9745240052. The book is organized as follows: a Preface and General Introduction by Michael Smithies, an English translation of the account published by General Desfarges with Preface by Smithies, an English translation of the account by de la Touche with Preface by Smithies, an English translation of an account by Vollant des Verquains with Preface by Smithies, a Conclusion and Chronology by Michael Smithies. Altogether, Smithies gives a rather precise account of the events related to the Siamese revolution over the 40 or so pages which he personnally authors. For some details, I also sometimes relied on the translations themselves. As far as I know, this is accepted by Wikipedia, provided that the primary accounts have been published by a reliable secondary source, and that the primary sources are used for purposed of factual documentation, which is the case here (see Wikipedia:No original research). Cheers. PHG (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kenrick7

Dispute resolution? -- Kendrick7^talk 18:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but PHG hasn't edited that article since 30 August 2007,[50][51] and that ArbCom case came into effect in March of this year. The case explicitly doesn't forbid him from commenting on Talk page, so I'm sure commenting on AfD's is fair game. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You trotted him out as a bogey-man and cited his having edited the article as a reason for deleting the article.[52] It's a stretch of the F-Ma case to declare that everything he ever touched is permanently sullied, and he was right to call you out on it. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you could always just de-ref the article, i.e. yank all the references (not added in the past 11 months) and put them on the article talk page, and then replace them all with {{fact}} tags, or information that is especially suspect with {{dubious}}. Stick a big {{unreferenced}} tag up top, and just let the article evolve from there. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article was pretty far along before (apparently) PHG ever got there.[53] I don't see how undoing the labors of dozens of editors over several years solves anything. There's no "quick fix." -- Kendrick7^talk 20:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shell Kinney

I think this might be solvable by having PHG choose a new mentor, since Coren does not appear to be performing that duty any longer. Shell ^babelfish 03:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka makes a good suggestion - we already had a de facto central area where we were listing articles to review and I'm sure no one would mind if Jehochman has other articles he wants to add to the list. Shell ^babelfish 05:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elonka

I'm not entirely understanding why this is at ArbCom again. The article that Jehochman is talking about, has not been edited by PHG in several months. So what exactly is it that Jehochman wants the arbitrators to do? Ban PHG for something he's not doing anymore? As near as I can tell, ever since the last clarification a few months ago, PHG has been doing a very good job at abiding by his sanctions. He is still creating articles at a rapid rate, but he is staying out of the medieval topic area, has not been engaging in excessive debate at talkpages, and appears (last I checked) to be sticking to reliable English-language sources. I do agree with Shell Kinney that since PHG's old mentor appears to be inactive, that it would be wise to choose a new mentor (I recommend Shell, if PHG would accept). As for cleanup, I recommend that anything new that is found, that requires cleanup from PHG's past efforts, be added to the list at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review. We are still working our way through the dozens of other PHG-edited articles with NPOV problems, so it couldn't hurt to add a few more, perhaps in a section like, "Additional articles for review", to make it clear that these may be in slightly different topic areas. At least that will provide a depository where identified articles can be clearly listed as still needing review, and will help identify the scope of the problem. --El onka 05:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mathsci

I am adding these comments at the request of Jehochman, following a private communication. Having looked at some of PHG's recent edits to articles connected with the Siege of Bangkok and Siamese revolution (1688), there do still appear to be problems with his edits. He appears to have used as his principal source translations of primary documents, reports by french soldiers present at the time, recently translated from French by Michael Smithies. A review [54] of this translation makes it clear that it requires the skills of a professional historian to interpret these first-hand accounts, plagued by rivalries and jealousies between different French factions. Other sources are not mentioned, e.g. Hutchinson's classic Revolution in Siam [55] and the very recent Witness to a Revolution: Siam 1688 [56], both translations of contemporary accounts. So apparently most of the article seems to be derived from primary sources and not a secondary text by a professional historian. The Thailand article in Distant Lands and Diverse Continents: The French Experience in Aisa, 1600-1700 by Ronald S. Love gives more detailed references, including a 40 page paper from 1935 by Hutchinson in the Journal of the Siam Society and Thailand: a short history by David K. Wyatt (117-118). Detailed secondary sources (such as the detailed account of Hutchinson) have not been identified by PHG. I hope these comments are useful. Mathsci (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

I've asked FloNight (on her talk page) about this issue's status since PHG seems to have ignored the one offer of mentoring by Angus (see PHG's talk). — Rlevse • Talk • 11:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

Per Elonka. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Along with the emerging consensus here, all we need to do is to find a volunteer to replace Coren as PHG's mentor. Are there any volunteers? Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting a new mentor asp seems to be the obvious solution. And in the future, PHG needs to let the Committee know if his mentor stops working with him. In the future, not letting us know might result in loss of editing privileges or other editing restrictions. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see one offer to act as a mentor on User:PHG's talk page. Will be a good idea to get several people to help, since this is an ongoing situation. Any one else that is interested can contact me on my talk page, email the arbcom mailing list or me, or leave a message on PHG's talk page. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I followed up with PHG and Angusmclellan. [57], [58] and brought the Committee up to date on ArbCom mailing list today. Will try to get the mentoring arrangement finalized in the next few days. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Elonka, Sam, and Flo. James F. (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Mathsci's comments are telling. They suggest an ongoing problem. Yes a new mentor — but PHG must be made to understand and follow our policy with regard to original research. Paul August ☎ 17:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Elonka, Sam, and Flo. --bainer (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Matthead (talk · contribs)

Statement by Moreschi

As I think WP:AE currently shows nicely, the Eastern Europe flamewars cannot be dealt with by the current provisions of the Digwuren case. At any rate, I cannot cope, and I don't think anyone else can either. Isolating civility in the way the case does has simply encouraged users to bait other users in an effort to get their opponents put on civility supervision and blocked. We need discretionary sanctions WP:ARBMAC style to counter this, though with a good definition of the area of conflict (I would suggest, at the least, that it covers Polish-German disputes, in addition to Polish-Russian and articles relating to the Baltic states and Ukraine). Best, Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User:Moreschi/The Plague/Useful links for a list of EE-related ArbCom cases. The problem goes back years, and is easily comparable to other problematic areas such as Arab-Israeli, Balkans, or India-Pakistan. At the moment a whole pile of revert-warriors need to be revert-paroled, some incorrigible trolls topic-banned, and some baiters blocked. The current Digwuren case does not allow for this to happen. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Daniel: better definition of the area of conflict needed, I'm afraid. Just "Eastern Europe" is too vague. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think "Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted" is too vague. As Eastern Europe makes clear, the term "Eastern Europe" is something rather ambiguous and definitions differ.

To Martintg: it's not bloody misanthropy. Chimpanzees are welcome to edit Wikipedia provided they grok the principles of neutrality, objectivity, and verifiability. If people can't manage this, then they have no place here, no matter if they offer an ethnically diverse viewpoint from Alpha Centauri. Good articles are not written by competing teams of POV-pushers. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by recent edit-war patterns, it's articles relating to the conflicts between Russia, Poland, Germany, Ukraine, Romania, and Moldova that are most in need of this. I suggest this as the "area of conflict" for now. AFAIK Baltic-Russian articles have gone quiet since the Digwuren case, but this may flare up again, so we should keep the option open of extending the area of conflict to include these states, as well as any others - such as Czech Republic and Slovakia - that may need it in future. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Matthead

I had opened at case at WP:AE, after which User:Molobo opened two against me 1st (closed) and 2nd, trying to take advantage that I had been added quickly to the Digwuren list shortly after it was opened, and got immediately blocked, while he and well known other editors have, well, since been overlooked somehow? I perceive the composition of the list as lopsided and doubt that Eastern Europe flamewars are conducted one way. Wikipedia has 5 pillars, of which "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" and "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view" are the first two, and arguably the most important ones, compared to "Wikipedia has a code of conduct" as fourth. Thus, as we try to write an encyclopedia, I think it is necessary that much more attention is given to the content that editors add or remove, rather than to civility or the lack thereof, or the skill with which some editors can provoke uncivil responses while getting judged civil themselves. For example, Molobo repeatedly denied that there was a by-election to the Polish parliament in 1920 [59] [60] [61] [62] with support by another well known user [63] [64], calling it a German hoax also on talk, and stubbornly refused to acknowledge that after the Versailles Treaty made Soldau/Dzialdowo Polish, a by-election was held, which apparently is also stated on pl-wiki (which he repeatedly rejects, eg. with no source in Polish wikipedia and I can just as well edit that article that Martians invaded Działdowo in 1920. They were no elections in 1920 in Poland to Sejm. Case closed.). If I had not fixed it, the misinformation "A German author claims that after the town was ceded to Poland a large part of German inhabitants left the area but the candidate of the German Party, Ernst Barczewski, was elected to the Sejm with 74,6 % of votes in 1920, although no Sejm elections took place at the time" would probably still remain. Also, on Talk:Karkonosze, he repeatedly made false claims, denying that both Encyclopedia Britannica and Opera Corcontica use Giant Mountains rather than Karkonosze. In both cases, he Refused to 'get the point' despite other editors providing evidence that the was wrong, very wrong. Is such behavior acceptable? Molobo almost got permabanned two years ago. He returned after his one year block, and seemingly was allowed to do as he pleases since. -- Matthead Discuß 02:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Piotrus' statement: it was Piotrus who made the most effective use of the new Digwuren case as soon as October 2007. It was him who had produced (actively?) "a big list" of (not so clear) diffs collected until December to take advantage of the restrictions, and managed to have Dr. Dan listed as the very first extension to the list, with Dr. Dan inflaming Eastern European topics. Soon, he got me, too, with Another Eastern European spat (originally titled Another Eastern European flamer, against which Dr.Dan protested). On the other hand, it indeed "is very, very difficult to get a user on the Digwuren's warning list" when he defends him, like in Darwinek's case. And as Piotrus and others know very well, it is hardly a coincidence that edits "will be reverted by more numerous" users who are listening to Gadu Gadu instant messenger. One of the biggest weaknesses of Wikipedia policies is that they treat editors as isolated individuals, especially in 3RR cases, while highly questionable forms of cooperations are overlooked, ignored, or denied. -- Matthead Discuß 09:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Relata refero

There is absolutely no doubt that this is required. My involvement in EE issues is limited to the Worst Article On Wikipedia and on responding to various RfCs and posts on noticeboards - perhaps half a dozen articles altogether. It would be more except for the (a) blatant wikilawyering and misrepresentation of sources that happens as a matter of course and (b) outright baiting and misapplication of civility. I'm not one of those who believes that civility is pointless when dealing with POV-pushers, but what we have in these articles is that any statement of fact - "that source is obviously irrelevant" - is met with head-shaking reminders to be civil in the hope that some form ArbCom-mandated sanction will be required.

As a general rule, any section of the 'pedia permanently plagued with clashing historical narratives requires our most stringent controls. These are more difficult to administer and keep clean, because of the free availability and difficulty in recognising dubious sourcing, than the pseudoscience/scientific consensus articles that people have wailing conniptions about all over the noticeboards. Not to mention there are fewer people able and willing to keep an eye on it, and its much tougher to recognise POV-pushing....

If ArbCom suggests that I present a few diffs of the sort of occasion where (a) civility restrictions have led to baiting and (b) discretionary sanctions would have been helpful - just from my own experience - I am willing to. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rlevse

I endorses this request. Many of the long-term problematic areas of wiki need strong and flexible remedies. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Biophys

"Blocks of up to one year" on discretion of a single uninvolved administrator... Such drastic measured could only be used for users with long blocking history (say 6+ blocks). Besides, the area of conflict should be clearly defined. I asked previously if any Russia-related subjects belong to Digwuren case, but there was no answer. I trust Moreschi judgment, but we need some safeguards if this is adopted as a general policy.Biophys (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, this might be a good idea if the area is clearly defined (e.g. Russia-Ukrainian conflict). But the definition of "uninvolved administrator" is terrible. There are many highly opinionated administrators who edit in the area. They will simply block all others. An "uninvolved administrator" should be someone who never edited in the area of conflict! Biophys (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the discretionary sanctions in the Digwurien ruling only drive away several good editors like Turgidson, but they did not really resolve anything (as Moreschi said). However this amended ruling will only make things worse unless you can deal with nationalist administrators who edit in the area of conflict. For example, this administrator threatened me with block while making himself his fourth revert in 24 hours here. If this ruling was already accepted, he or his allies would simply block me or anyone else for a year, and this is it. Giving so much power to Moreschi is fine. But giving so much power to nationalist administrators is not a good idea. That is why I insisted on a different definition of "uninvolved administrator".Biophys (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Martintg

There is no justification to extend discretionary sanctions to other topic areas such as the Polish/Russian articles, Ukraine or particularly the Baltic states. An examination of WP:ANI and other boards will reveal that these areas are relatively harmonious, and the existing mechanisms such as 3RR are working well.

A similar motion to impose discretionary sanctions across all of Easter Europe, on the back of a single 3RR violation in that case, was attempted back in February, but was archived due to lack of interest and some important questions of scope remaining unanswered [65]

So what has happened since February? A scan through the WP:AE archives reveals only a small number of cases reported to the AE board have anything actually to do with Eastern Europe. Out of 126 cases since February, only 4 are EE related, particularly Poland, and of those 4, 3 are concerned with Matthead [66],[67],[68]

Experience has shown that in the case of EE, disruption is usually caused by one or two individuals, and if they are banned/blocked harmony quickly returns. This is clearly a case concerning the behaviour of an individual and has no relevance to any other topic areas like Ukraine, Poland/Russia or the Baltic States. Massive intervention that risks totally chilling a broad subject area is not required, particularly when precise targeted action is more than sufficient. Martintg (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Bakharev contends the current sanction encourages editors to "bait" other parties into civility violations. If this is the case, then discretionary sanctions will be an even bigger encouragement to bait editors into violation, since it only requires the discretion of a single uninvolved admin and the heavy threat of desysoping other admins who may overturn a sanction. A very profitable outcome to any baiter compared with the current situation. Arguing for additional sanctions across all Eastern European articles because of a dispute about some German/Polish topic is akin to arguing for discretionary sanctions across all North American related articles because of disruption in some US related article like 9/11. I'm sure those editing Canadian or Mexican topics would not be happy about that prospect. Martintg (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at User:Moreschi/The Plague/Useful links for a list of EE-related ArbCom cases, we see that there were 6 cases in 2007 (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anonimu doesn't count, as discussed here), but zero in the first half of 2008. This is a testament to the improvement that has been made since 2007, and thus no comparison to other problematic areas such as Arab-Israeli, for example, which has had already 2 Arbcom cases in 2008 so far. If Moreschi believes there are a "whole pile of revert-warriors need to be revert-paroled, some incorrigible trolls topic-banned, and some baiters blocked", he should name them here, as I know of none in the Baltic states topic area that requires the imposition of addtitional discretionary sanctions. I'm not aware of issues in the areas either, e.g. like Ukraine, certainly nothing serious enough to warrant reporting to ANI or other boards. Martintg (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the other person banned in this case, Petri Krohn, is actually Finnish, not Russian. The Digwuren conflict at its core was primarily between an Estonian and a Finn, were the Finn recruited some Russian editors to his cause. (Krohn is even now continuing his battle off-wiki in the Estonian press with his opinion piece "Estonia is a fascist apartheid state"). It is unfortunate that the remedies in the Digwuren case were extended to broadly cover Eastern Europe, and is now being exploited by Moreschi to further his agenda as expressed in his essay "The Plague". And it is a pity that some ArbCom members have apparently bought into it rather than look at the facts on the ground. Regardless of one's opinion of Sarah777, her rebuttal of Morsechi's thesis in her lampooning essay "The Real Plague" raises some valid issues with Moreschi's views on ethnic diversity of viewpoints in Wikipedia. We all want to build an encyclopedia without drama, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and applying discretionary sanctions aimed at particular national groupings is a step in the wrong direction. Martintg (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Moreschi: assigning the bad behaviour of individuals to national groups, then characterising it as a "plague", is not misanthropic? I sympathize fully with what admins like yourself are up against, particularly when Irpen wades in and ratchets up the drama in his usual style in support of his compatriots, right or wrong. If only Kirill had at the very least widened the definition of involved admin and narrowed the scope to specific topic areas, like Russia, I could support this motion, but as it stands, I can not. The problem with this approach is that mere assumed membership of a group is then sufficient to cast suspicion. Institutionalize this approach by adopting discretionary sanctions for Eastern Europe and the result will be disastrously clear. Martintg (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Biophys is right, if this remedy is adopted, the definition of involved admin needs to be expanded, being an admin doesn't magically make one forget their national origin or the desire to defend their view. Even Kirill admitted to me his background made him sensitive, which was a surprise to me since I originally assumed he was American born. Not an issue for me, ofcourse, but I do wonder if this sensitivity has led to the introduction of sanctions that are more draconian and wider in scope than they really need to be. Martintg (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Piotrus

For the most part I agree with Marting. I don't think that CE/EE area is much more inflamed then many others; we just have a few persistent trolls and borderline disruptive users. We have weeks of quiet punctuated by an occasional week when one of them "wakes up" and disrupts an article or two, then goes away after he learns again that such disruption will be reverted by more numerous, neutral editors. That said, it is a fact that such storms are stressful and may result in a good editor taking a long wikibreak or even permanently leaving, fed up with flaming and harassment. It is very, very difficult to get a user on the Digwuren's warning list and later, blocked - even if one produces a big list of very clear diffs you get the usual "random admin decision", usually erring on the case of 'let's give him another chance' or 'he was warned few month ago and inactive recently, so let's just warn him again'. And certainly, other admins may be to timid or afraid to apply the remedy to experienced editors who have proven their skills with wikilawyering. Thus I do think that the Digwuren sanction ended up being relatively pointless. Just as before, what we need are a few blocks (or topical ban - see who creates little to no content but flames and revert wars) - and the problem would cease to exist. Perhaps some conclusions from this debate may prove useful in dealing with this problem once and for all.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I support Moreschi's idea of adding WP:ARBMAC-like solutions to Digwuren's case. This would vastly improve their effectiveness.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alex Bakharev (talk)

I agree with Moreschi, the Digwuren sanction encourage editors to bite other parties into the civilty violations and does not help to solve the underlying problem that many editors consider Eastern European articles as battleground and soapbox instead and insert deliberately inflammatory edits to the articles instead of striving to present some balanced view points Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel

The Homeopathy discretionary sanctions have passed (by virtue of having six support and one abstention, which reduces the majority to six), and the case is moving towards being closed. Per Kirill below, who said that the Committee was waiting to see which version of discretionary sanctions was prefered, I think the Committee has decided to this effect (the other discretionary sanctions proposal in that case only recieved one support, so the disparity is evident).

Therefore I propose the following motion:

--- START PROPOSED MOTION ---

Remedy 11, "General restriction" is superceded by the following remedy:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) 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 by an uninvolved administrator; 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.

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), 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.

Uninvolved administrators

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.

Logging

All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans.

--- END PROPOSED MOTION ---

Regards, Daniel (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ChrisO

This might be too radical a suggestion, I know, but might it be possible to adapt something like WP:ARBMAC to provide set of tools that could be applied generically, without having to trigger a full-scale arbitration to achieve that end? I don't think it would be appropriate to allow an individual arbitrator to impose such a regime by him- or herself, but perhaps it could be triggered if there was a consensus among uninvolved admins that there was a problem requiring the application of the ARBMAC tools. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ghirla

Daniel's motion is far too wide in scope. I'm afraid it will have the effect of shifting the power from ArbCom to the legions of IRC-recruited admins, with bans randomly flying like rifle shots in passing. This is based on a flawed idea of justice. I don't agree with Piotrus that the EE field is plagued by "a few persistent trolls and borderline disruptive users". Those are not a problem that requires ArbCom's involvement. It is plagued by a few long-standing and dedicated editors whose sole aim is to glorify their country and to skew the perspective with their tendentious editing. For a start I'd be for putting Piotrus under editing restrictions, for it would go a longer way toward lightening up the atmosphere than any of the proposed motions. Since I had not been editing English Wikipedia between November and June (apart from inserting interwiki links to my articles in Russian Wikipedia), nobody can call me the mastermind of all the problems, as Piotrus had insinuated in the previous cases. If nothing has changed for the better, what was the purpose of ArbCom's ousting me out of English Wikipedia during the Digwuren case? That screw-up highlighted ArbCom's incompetence and inefficiency, and the proposed motion will have a similar effect. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed wording from biophys

Per this diff, Biophys suggests the following change to the proposed discretionary sanctions. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of discretionary sanctions.

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

I have recused myself once and I believe that at least I can say that this area needs more strict measures. I also agree with user:Biophys though the safeguards come usually with the pack. What Moreschi is asking for is the green light from the ArbCom. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It must be reminded that this is not a place for discussions as it is mentioned on top of this page. It doesn't help a lot. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My response here is the same one that I made in regards to the identical request in the Martinphi-ScienceApologist case below: I'll be happy to move for discretionary sanctions here once the Homeopathy case closes and we know which version of the sanctions is preferred. Kirill ^(prof) 00:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motions and voting

Discretionary sanctions

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) 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 by an uninvolved administrator; 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.

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), 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.

Uninvolved administrators

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.

Logging

All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans.

Other provisions

This provision supersedes the "General restriction" remedy, but does not affect any other provisions of the case, or any sanctions already imposed under the "General restriction" remedy.

There are 12 active arbitrators with one abstaining, so six votes are a majority.

Support:

Proposed as promised; wording is taken from the (currently) passing version in Homeopathy. Kirill ^(prof) 01:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Using the preferred wording. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This wording seems to work better and give more clarity to all concerned. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Long overdue. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as previously discussed. James F. (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I preferred the prior, wider definition of involvement. --bainer (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Paul August ☎ 17:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request: The list of users in affected areas is too large to collect, list and notify conveniently. I will place notices of this request, so the community as a whole is aware, on the village pump,[69] administrators' noticeboard,[70] and fringe theory noticeboard.[71] If another editor believes there is a specific user or another on-wiki forum that should receive notice, they should feel free to drop a link to them.

Statement by Vassyana

I would like to request that ArbCom explicitly permit discretionary sanctions on all pseudoscience and alternative science topics, broadly construed, similar to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions. See here, here, here, here, here, here and here. That is only the recent threads, only from the AE noticeboard, only involving a very limited number of users involved in the broader dispute. I believe ArbCom explicitly endorsing discretionary sanctions would empower and embolden sysops and the community to resolve these long-standing issues, once and for all. Vassyana (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply about potential admin abuse

Regarding the concerns about potential admin abuse, I would expect that if ArbCom accepted this request that they would be open to reviewing complaints about related admin abuse. I believe this would increase the oversight and reduce the potential abuse of sysop discretion. Sysops would have to be accoutable for their actions.

I believe relying on more than common sense for the definition of "uninvolved" will only lead to wikilawyering. All of the proposed definitions I've seen essentially leave massive loopholes that anyone looking to game the system or skirt the rules could use. If there is a disagreement about whether an administrator is involved or not, a brief community discussion or appeal to ArbCom should suffice. I simply fail to see the point of creating a limited definition prone to gaming, which would require other admins and the community to employ their natural power of reason regardless. Vassyana (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Neal's oppose, I simply cannot understand that point of view, though I have tried. We permit administrators to impose full site blocks without an expiration date at their discretion. I fail to see how giving administrators lessor options (such as a topic ban instead of a full block) in long-disputed areas with persistant conduct problems would increase abuse potential. I should additionally note that we're discussing long-term problems, involving users who either know better by know or almost assuredly are never going to get it, not newbies who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Vassyana (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may comment directly (if not you can move this to my section). I'm more concerned about abuse-through-misunderstanding rather than abuse-abuse. It's not always clear what's neutral, and the discretionary sanctions designed for Homeopathy and the Palestine-Israeli issue are designed for narrow subjects. A broader subject category, like all pseudoscience/alternative science, becomes muddled with lots of other issues (see my statement). The discretionary sanctions for the narrow topics say any percieved "[failure] to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia", by any admin who feels strongly about it. There's lots of admins who feel strongly about their interpretation of NPOV, whether they're involved or not, and especially if they're involved in the broader discussions though not technically involved in the given page at the given time. The discretionary sanctions don't discriminate between bad editor practices like incivility, edit warring, etc. and good faith content disputes. Good faith content disputes can easily be seen as a "conduct problem", as that happens all the time. Maybe I am making a mountain out of a molehill, but hopefully you can see where the concern comes from. On a side-note, if we already have tools available for getting problem editors off these articles, why aren't they already banned? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply about community discussion

Requesting or advocating that such discretionary empowerment be limited to consensus discussions is essentially the same as opposing this request. The community already has the power to impose bans and other sanctions via community discussion. I tend to think that over time, using such a method will only open up another battleground. Enforcement threads have already become another place to argue for the disputants in heated areas. I shudder to think what kind of response would be received after the first couple of sanction discussions make it "real" to such parties. (For an example, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive409#User:Mccready_-_endless.2C_disruptive.2C_repetitive_edit_warring.)

Regarding the concern about appeals, they should generally be appealable like any other admin action enforcing ArbCom sanctions: 1) Post to AN to ask other admins to review it. 2) Appeal to ArbCom. Excessive, repeated or otherwise disruptive series of appeals are not appeals at all; they are stumping and should be treated by another uninvolved administrator as disruptive. Vassyana (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to concerns about scope

What if the scope were limited to areas and users that have severe long-running and/or perpetually recurring behavioral issues? I believe that would keep the scope from being too broad or limited. Vassyana (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rlevse

I heartily endorse this request for stronger measures re editors on both sides of this issue. More details to follow. I'll be on wiki break much of this weekend. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides throw reports at WP:AE, trying to see what will stick. Many admins are wary to block because of fears another admin that is sympathetic to the blockee will unblock. The remedies in place are not working and something has to be done about it. There are also significant agreements among admins about what constitutes civility. This leads to users who have mastered the art of being borderline incivil and getting away with it for years. A firm policy about this sort of incivility being blockable, long term if necessary, need to be put in place. Copied from my comment at WP:AE archive 20..."Closing comment...enough already. This has descended into a finger-pointing complaint session by both sides. Before writing anything about someone else, ask "Would I want to be called that?". If not, don't write it. If it's borderline don't write it-this would stop all the attempts here where users throw up a report just to see what sticks; only truly legit reports would get filed if this were to occur. For example, maybe you wouldn't mind being called "braindead", but it would offend a lot of people. Also, you (you as in everyone, both sides) may consider your efforts on wiki non-POV, but others may not. If everyone involved here would take a step back, take a deep breath, and admit that the world of wiki is plenty big for everyone, things would be a lot calmer. These types of disputes start and go on and on when no one allows room for the other side. I see this not only in the pseudoscience area, but Mid-East, East Europe, Sri Lanka, etc disputes. On top of all this, there's about disagreement about the civility here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)"...Something has to be done here, this long term situation is highly divisive to the encyclopedic and takes way too admin effort to keep it within harmonic editing boundaries. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nealparr

Sure, if by "uninvolved administrator" you mean administrators not involved in "pseudoscience and alternative science topics, broadly construed" as a whole, or regularly, rather than a given page at a given time. After years of this madness, Wikipedia has collected some ban-happy admins with grudges and axes to grind. I'm sure many of them would love to ban their opponents on content disputes for up to a year. What sort of assurances can one like myself who edits paranormal-related articles as a hobby, not advocacy, be given that the new powers won't be abused? I don't edit war, am civil, but I've irritated admins in the past simply by disagreeing with them in content disputes, particularly that Wikipedia can also cover folklore neutrally without having a solely science point-of-view. Some admins adamantly reject that eventhough most agree that such a prospect is entirely neutral. AGF went out the window about two years ago on these topics, so frankly I'm a little concerned.

Paranormal topics aren't just pseudoscience (though they are, in part, that). There's also a historical perspective (eg. Remote viewing was studied by the CIA, UFOs were studied by the Air Force, Parapsychology was once accepted by the elite in society like William James, etc.). Presenting that historical information is sometimes called POV pushing by admins. There's also the sociological perspective (eg. 73 percent of the general US population holds some sort of paranormal belief [72]). Presenting information regarding just the "beliefs" is sometimes called POV pushing by admins. There's also the cultural, folklore perspective (eg. Spooklights are common in Southern US folklore). Talking about the folklore on those articles is sometimes called POV pushing by admins who say that the article should predominantly be about methane gases, etc. So, yes, there is a potential for abuse based solely on ideologies and old grudges. If the goal is to just to refresh the editor pool on these topics regardless of whether they're productive Wikipedians, that's fine, that goal will be served if no oversight is in place. But if the goal is to only target disruptive editors, there will need to be some sort of oversight.

I'd like to see what DGG mentioned below, a Topic Ban Noticeboard and some degree of practical consensus to prevent a single editor/admin, or ideological group of editors/admins, from going ban-happy. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 13:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

per Vassyana's replies on it's intended use. It seems fundamentally wrong that blocking or banning a user, a person, would have less outside discussion than what it takes to delete an article. This is essentially a "speedy delete" applied to a user, in spirit. It's always harder to correct a mistake than it is to prevent a mistake. Community discussion is essential when dealing with users who may not be aware that what they are doing is wrong, and determining what actually is wrong to begin with. That's what RfCs are all about. If the goal is to relieve the burden on the ArbCom, that can be done without dropping the discussions altogether. A very simple way to do that is to say "If after a RfC about applying sanctions on the user, allowing for community input and consensus-building, an uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict." Anything less is setting the bar for deleting a user from a topic lower than deleting a topic itself. The RfC also has the benefit of providing the banning/blocking admin with a summary of the issues surrounding the user so they could make an informed decision. The admin could, of course, in their discretion, interpret the RfC anyway they wish and impose their discretionary sanctions, but at least there'd be a discussion on the matter. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRBerry

Concur that this is a good idea, as an admin who is a regular at WP:AE. Editors active in this area should write their comments assuming that their own actions, and those of whom they agree with on content, will be reviewed and possibly sanctioned. I know of multiple editors in each faction who have effectively developed enemy lists of other editors they want banned, which is a bad sign for the ability of the editors in these areas to work together. We need to clear out those who can't or won't work with those who disagree with them so that a reasonable communal editing environment exists for current and future editors. GRBerry 15:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a strong definition of uninvolved/neutral is needed here. I commend the WP:ARBPIA model - has never been involved in a content dispute on any article in the pseudoscience/paranormal topic area with that topic area broadly construed. GRBerry 17:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need more than that. We need a statement of neutrality toward the subjects themselves. I've seen mediators come in and say essentially "Well it's bunk so..." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Martinphi

Endorse per everything Nealparr said. I have very little confidence in the ability of admins 1) to be neutral if they are involved and 2) to get it if they are not. Indeed, I have seen editors like Zvika who did my interview struggle with the issues in these cases, and find it nearly impossible (many many hours of work to get up to date). I have seen obviously biased admins who are supposedly "outside" the debates come in and give sanctions. For example, some of those banning people relative to the 9/11 or Homeopathy issues. In other words, I have no fear of neutrality, but I have fear of hidden bias. If even Nealparr is scared, I certainly am, because I've been deionized all over the place irrespective of my actual edits, beliefs, ideas or intent.

I would like an advocate that I can agree is neutral, such as LaraLove or DGG or maybe Vassyana to review things before any action is take against me. Same for others.

I suggest that a committee of truly neutral subject matter experts, or simply editors truly neutral to the subjects be set up to deal with sourcing in paranormal areas. "Do you feel neutral toward issues of the paranormal?" Should be the question. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DGG

I think the "endorsements" above show why it might not actually work--the disagreement between different arbitrators over the standards for these articles is fairly complete. Everyone things that they are neutral. I can predict what will happen, which is continual appeals from it, carried on in every forum possible, just as present. And i do not think the problem is that hopeless either, because I think the community is evolving standards. The problem is not individual topics--the problem is what degree of tolerance we should have for disruptive actions by good editors. Personally, I don't think they should get the essentially free ride they have at present.

If we do something of this sort, I would not leave it to individual admins. or editors. What I think we'd need is the equivalent of a topic ban noticeboard, and some degree of practical consensus would be required. I remember the fate of the community ban noticeboard and I'm a little skeptical. DGG (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seicer

I believe that, if implemented properly, could be an effective tool in finally ending the heated disagreements between the "anti-science" and "pro-science" camps. I do not believe it will lead to an end of hidden bias or blatant bias -- nor should it -- but that the implementation of a topic ban could finally kill the endless attacks against other editors and administrators, and could finally open the door for new editors, with fresh viewpoints and dialogues, to come in and edit.

I'd also like to echo GRBerry's comments above. There are multiple editors who have developed "watch lists" of other editors and administrators that they either want banned, or removed from various positions at Wikipedia. I will not go into specifics here regarding that, but it's a statement that's been made numerous times previously, here and elsewhere, and that it is leading to a serious divide in how, as editors and administrators, can resolve this long-standing conflict. I'd like to see a "topic ban noticeboard," but I am afraid that it would fall to either inactivity or hidden bias. seicer | talk | contribs 19:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kww

I understand the intention, and fear the result. I think that in order to maintain standing as an encyclopedia, we need be more specific, and actually take a side in favor of facts. Discretionary sanctions should be made available, targeted towards editors that make edits stating or implying a factual basis for pseudoscientific or paranormal topics. If we did that for a while, the heat and rancor would die down, because people attempting to corrupt the encyclopedia would eventually be eliminated.Kww (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tom Butler

Any effort that would make it possible for administrators to more effectively arbitrate content disputes would help. I have been treated as poorly by some admins as I have by some rank and file editors, so I am not in favor of giving any individual admin more authority. Perhaps a cadre of three or five editors would provide protection to both sides.

Lets face it, an arbitration takes way too long, and as I can see, they have hardly any effect except to more clearly define the sides. If an admin blocks an appeal to authority, then the person making the appeal is discredited and the abusive editor becomes more bullet proof. In fact, Wikipedia is not able to manage editors who are willing to game the system.

I have only edited on a few paranormal articles so I may be unaware of some of the grievances. Nevertheless, from my viewpoint, it is unrealistic to imagine that it is possible to arbitrate content disputes without deciding on content--not taking sides, but saying what the article will include. I would be comfortable with a venue in which I could present my viewpoint to a panel, editors with a contrary viewpoint could do the same and the panel would decide the article based on their "fair and informed" decision of what was presented. Give each presenter 500 words and ten diffs. I think I could find a way to live with that and I am certainly willing to try. Tom Butler (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, most of us "believers" just want to have the articles you are complaining about explain what the subject is said to be or thought to be without trying to say what you think it is or what you want the public to believe. I would be interested in how you would apply the treatment used for articles on religious beliefs to paranormal articles. For instance, I suspect that not even members of the WikiProject Rational Skepticism would attempt to make Wikipedia say that the Catholic Church is not real. Can you apply a similar standard to the EVP article without characterizing as real or not real? Can you just say what it is reported to be? Doing so would certainly stop a lot of the content disputes. Tom Butler (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jossi

Agree in principle with Vassyana's proposal, with the caveats presented by DGG, that is to have a place in which we can assess some measure of administrators' consensus when applying broad restrictions such as topic bans or blocks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:B

This has too much potential for abuse the way it is worded. Some people consider anything they disagree with to be pseudoscience and would attempt to apply this far beyond its scope. (For example, most evangelical Christians believe in something other than atheistic evolution, therefore someone who edits Bobby Bowden is editing an article on pseudoscience, right?) It needs to be spelled out what this applies to - theories of origin, alternative medicine, paranormal, etc. --B (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Baegis

I'm going to have to agree with B on this one. There are some areas which qualify as pseudoscience but which do not need this sort of protection. The ID related articles are stable for the most part, because there are a great number of fine editors who are very active on those pages. They are occasionally disrupted, but not nearly enough for the scope of this proposal to be anything more than a hindrance. The areas that this will apply to need to be better spelled out. There are probably thousands of articles that fall within the pseudoscience area, especially if broadly defined. And if BLP's are included in that, ie the ones of proponents of pseudoscience, there are an even greater number of articles. I would wager that it is pretty clear the the biggest problems lie in the CAM area and the paranormal areas. Focusing on the most problematic areas is a better idea than a big sweeping probation. Baegis (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

There is a long-standing issue with pseudoscience, fringe and paranormal articles. The sources which discuss these subjects are typically either wholly uncritical, or dedicated sceptics. The fact that the mainstream science community does not accept paranormal claims is hard to source, because scientists do not publish papers saying that hokum is hokum. The result is a series of in-universe articles on fictional topics. Added to that, we have believers in these paranormal ideas whose primary function on Wikipedia is to attempt to have them documented as reality, not a fringe belief system.

I do believe we can make this work by applying the same methods as are applied in articles on religious belief systems. The article on Saint Alban documents the verifiable facts which are undisputed, being the identity and martyrdom, documented in local Roman records; discusses the mythology of the Holy Well; and discusses the cult of Alban. I think we can document the paranormal belief system in the same way, but we have too many people asserting that it is real. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Antelan

My own personal sentiment is that the current options for enforcement have not yet been applied in a stringent way, and should not be broadened until they have been fully tested. That said, I share Vassayana's frustration, and would hope that this will serve to push administrators to use the tools that they have been given. Antelan^talk 17:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

Given the occasionally contentious nature of the discussions regarding this subject, perhaps it might be possible for the ArbCom to help in the selection of a group of editors who would be able to function in much the same way as the recently created cultural disputes group is supposed to. It might also be useful for some of the religion and pseudoscience content as well, given the often disparate opinions there. Might it be possible to expand the remit of the existing cultural disputes group, and possibly its membership, to include these other matters as well, or alterntely create similar groups for these matters? John Carter (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Filll

Although I understand the desire to come up with a quick fix or a magic bullet here, I do not think that more enforcement is the answer. I have observed how well more enforcement and greater empowerment of admins worked at homeopathy and related articles, and I have to admit I was somewhat underwhelmed. I have also encountered a fair number of administrators who are FRINGE proponents or antiscience themselves, so just giving all administrators more power is not a very well-reasoned response. I would like to see a more measured and careful approach for dealing with this kind of problem, such as those potential options being considered at the discussion lead by User:Raul654 at [73].--Filll (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel

The Homeopathy discretionary sanctions have passed (by virtue of having six support and one abstention, which reduces the majority to six), and the case is moving towards being closed. Per Kirill below, who said that the Committee was waiting to see which version of discretionary sanctions was prefered, I think the Committee has decided to this effect (the other discretionary sanctions proposal in that case only recieved one support, so the disparity is evident).

Therefore I propose the following motion:

--- START PROPOSED MOTION ---

The following remedy is added to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) 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 by an uninvolved administrator; 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.

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), 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.

Uninvolved administrators

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.

Logging

All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Log of blocks and bans.

--- END PROPOSED MOTION ---

Regards, Daniel (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Messedrocker

Do we seriously need a horse and pony show over this? The fact of the matter is, the encyclopedia comes first. In an encyclopedia, established facts backed up by evidence comes first. Scientific academia is making a more significant effort than the alternative to adhere to the scientific method and prove their stuff (through a rigorous review by envious researchers who want to do no more than to destroy other researchers). Alternative thought still has a place in articles, but while it still is alternative, then it should be regarded as such. Violations of the principle of undue weight should be treated with editorial treatment so that due weight is restored. People should be blocked from editing articles when their edits are more trouble than it's worth. MessedRocker (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

We are currently looking into some modifications to the discretionary sanction ruling as part of the Homeopathy case; while I'm open to imposing them here, I'd prefer to avoid doing so until we decide on the better wording there. Kirill ^(prof) 01:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kirill. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motions and voting

Discretionary sanctions

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) 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 by an uninvolved administrator; 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.

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), 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.

Uninvolved administrators

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.

Logging

All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Log of blocks and bans.

Other provisions

This provision does not affect any existing provisions of the case.

There are 12 active arbitrators, so seven votes are a majority.

Support:

Proposed as promised; wording is taken from the (currently) passing version in Homeopathy. Kirill ^(prof) 01:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Using the preferred wording. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As above; the clearest wording for this type of remedy. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, yes. James F. (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I preferred the prior, wider definition of involvement. --bainer (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not yet convinced of the wisdom of these sanctions in this context. Paul August ☎ 16:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain: