Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review (WP:RREV).
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Shortcuts

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Current requests

Preventing edit on Arjun MBT page

Initiated by Chanakyathegreat (talk) at 15:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

Statement by Chanakyathegreat

There was an edit in Arjun MBT page long back which provided a one sided view of the issue. That's the Winter trial failure. That version stayed with the involment of Admin Jauerback. Now When I try to edit the article with the latest information by providing sources without deleting the older edit, it got reverted back by By78 and later by Admin Jauerback. I am not able to edit the article because of the reverts by By78 and Jauerback. They are not understanding the issue and not allowing the article to be with correct information. The only reply that i get is accusation and comments like why don't you understand. Request the issue to be settled.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jauerback

This is essentially a content dispute, so I'm not sure where arbitration is going to lead. As of I've told Changa numerous times, I have no position on the content of the article. I was led to by a request on AN/I. Essentially, the problem is there was a consensus from other editors of the article back in August about the information that Changa was trying to change/add. Changa's sources have gotten better, but the consensus for his content hasn't changed. I've only told Changa that he needs to gain consensus as he has been warned numerous times by others for POV pushing. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected, like I thought it would be. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Stifle

Arbitration is the final step in dispute resolution, used only when all previous efforts have failed. Have you tried a request for comments or mediation? Remember also that the Arbitration Committee does not tend to consider content issues without an underlying user conduct issue. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by By78

I have nothing more to say regarding this matter. For all those who are interested, please read the discussions for the Arjun article, as they contain pretty much whatever can be said about this dispute. To see records on Chanakyagreat's POV pushing, please simply refer to his talk page, as it is full of comments from other editors rebuking his POV pushing on not just the Arjun, but also the Great Power article. By78 (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Reject; content dispute. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. This is a content dispute and the request is severely premature. The first forum for resolving this dispute ought to have been Talk:Arjun MBT but the debate there seems to consist of either side calling the other vandals, which has been repeated on the user talk pages and also on the Administrators' noticeboard. The disputants should forget trying to label each other and instead discuss the contents of the article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject per Sam. --bainer (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. I agree with Sam. fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject per Sam. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court and U.S. code quotes

Initiated by Kay Sieverding (talk) at 16:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of request

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arthur_Rubin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Famspear http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Non_Curat_Lex


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

There is extensive discussion on the article discussion board. Some of it they removed to subpages

Statement by Kay Sieverding

When I found the "pro se" page, it contained statements that were contrary to the U.S. code and Supreme Court statements. No sources were cited for the misrepresentations. I pasted in the U.S. code and Supreme Court cases concerning the subject both with footnotes and they were repeatedly deleted by "Non Curat Lex", "Famspear" and/or "Arthur Rubin". One of them also deleted a quotation, with references, from the ABA journal interviewing Justice Scalia. They appear to have an agenda of wanting Wikipedia to keep these Supreme Court decisions, the U.S. code, and Justice Scalia's statements secret. They keep calling Supreme Court decisions "primary sources" and "case dumps". In other articles on legal issues, Supreme Court decisions are simply summarized or quoted with footnotes. One of them deleted a Supreme Court discussion of William Penn. It does not appear that they have posted anything with any footnotes. I deleted only a few unsupported sentences that were contrary to the Supreme Court and the U.S. Code. My character is being attacked for adding quotations of the U.S. code, Supreme Court and various constitutions. I don't know what to do but I hate to see Wikipedia spreading misinformation. I don't have a problem with them posting laws, cases, quotations etc. but they are not posting verifiable authorities, they are just deleting my verifiable major authorities and criticizing me personally. They also deleted a scholarly U.S. 2nd circuit decision that quoted 2 law review articles and 4 history books. Much of what they deleted they removed to "sub pages". I don't have all the Wikipedia formatting figured out and I tried to post a request for style. I guess I did that wrong somehow because it didn't appear but they wouldn't help me do that right. All that I want to do is make sure that the U.S. code and relevant Supreme Court decisions are posted so that Wikipedia users see them. I thought the Justice Scalia interview was relevant and that the deleted 2nd Circuit discussion of history was much better than the postings without footnotes that it supplemented.

Statement by uninvolved user Stifle

I've fixed the formatting of this request. Recommend rejection as this is primarily a content issue and prior dispute resolution has not been tried. Stifle (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also properly notified the involved users and explained to the filer that this RFAR is probably premature. Stifle (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Famspear

I don't see this as being properly the subject of arbitration. This matter relates to the article Pro se and edits by a relatively inexperienced user, "Kay Sieverding." The article is on a legal subject -- pro se - a term describing a person who files a lawsuit representing himself or herself without using a lawyer (a perfectly legal procedure). The edits by Kay Sieverding are to some extent tententious and even off topic. The main motivation for my edits, however, is that the material Kay Sieverding is inserting is confusing, or the sourcing is confusing.

Contrary to the assertions by Kay Sieverding, I don't see any attempt or "agenda of wanting Wikipedia to keep these Supreme Court decisions, the U.S. code, and Justice Scalia's statements secret." I also don't see any personal attacks against Kay Sieverding. The legal right of an individual to file a lawsuit without a lawyer is not exactly a secret, and there is little that is controversial about it.

It does appear to me that the account for "Kay Sieverding" is being used for a single purpose by an individual with a conflict of interest, especially regarding the topic of pro se litigation. For background, google the name "Kay Sieverding" and the problems she has been having with the U.S. legal system in her pro se lawsuits.

I believe editors Robert A. West, Arthur Rubin, Non Curat Lex, and myself are trying to deal with the edits by Kay Sieverding in a constructive manner. This is not a proper subject for arbitration, in my opinion. Yours, Famspear (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved editor Robert A. West

I have edited several articles in cooperation with both users Famspear and Arthur Rubin. I have always found them respectful, patient and mindful of Wikipedia policies. I came across this article just today, and there are some serious cleanup issues, mostly related to primary sources (statutes and opinions) that have been "dumped" into the article . A quick review of the history convinces me that this is a garden-variety content dispute that can be resolved by the ordinary workings of Wikipedia. I see no evidence of any conduct issue, on either side, requiring intervention by Arbcom. I am hopeful that, as another editor who is not a legal technician, I can be of assistance. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per Arthur Rubin's request below, I have attempted to format an RfC per Kay's apparent wishes. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Non Curat Lex

I agree with Famspear and the uninvolved editors to weigh in to this point. The request pertains to content, primary dispute resolution has not been attempted. Therefore, the request for arbitration should be denied (without prejudice) as premature. Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arthur Rubin

I agree that this is a content dispute, although my refactoring the text inserts into subpages of the talk page might also be considered questionable. In any case, the proper venue is an article RfC, which Kay attempted to do (but didn't format it correctly). If any uninvolved editor or arbitor wishes to reformat the RfC attempt at the start of Talk:Pro se#Quotations of U.S. Supreme Court as verifiable source into a proper RfC, I have no objection. (I don't think I should do it, myself.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Decline; premature, and content issue. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, per jpgordon. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 06:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. It is a content dispute and it has not gone through previous steps in dispute resolution. Also please note that court judgments themselves are normally considered as primary sources, which does not mean that they are not reliable and cannot be used, but does mean that a secondary source is preferred. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject per Sam, though I would add that I fear Kay's apparent lack of familiarity with wikitext formatting and so forth may be impeding proper dispute resolution here, so I would strongly advise all involved to help Kay in this regard; for example, as Arthur Rubin mentions, assising Kay with formatting an RfC would be useful. --bainer (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject per Sam and bainer. And thanks to the users that are helping Kay. I'm hopeful that this assistance and some other guidance by the community will settle this content dispute without the assistance of ArbCom. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban of Benjiboi

Initiated by Daedalus969 (talk) at 10:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried


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

Statement by Daedalus969

I request that Benjiboi's topic ban be removed, as it was discussed without his notification here, and apparently, the blocking admin used this discussion as reasoning to ban him from the topic, as noted here. I was aware that secret trials were prohibited here at wikipedia, due to a Arbcom case in the past that I read through. Although I cannot cite the case, I hope those reading this know which case I speak of. If not, then I shall look for the link if requested.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 10:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I remembered the case that prompted me to request this, please see Orangemarlin.

Just to make sure I make my case clear, the topic-banned user was not given due process regarding his ban, and the situation could have been remedied with a warning to cease and desist. Is an indef ban really necessary for what happened here?— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 10:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Guy

As the user in question has continuously stated, it is not the the ban on that particular topic that distresses him, but the way the topic ban was handled. As he has stated to you numerous times(this is not a quote): it would be the same if it was any other article or topic, and the same procedure you used for this ban was used again.

Response to GRBerry and Jpgordon

As to the final version of the thread at the notice board, I had not known it had existed. Secondly, I shall not withdraw, as I believe that if the topic-banned user had been notified, and in fact, others outside the subject of debate were involved, that the outcome would have been different. This is in regards to the statements by GRBerry, where it is asserted that assumptions had been made despite the fact that that the topic-banned user in question was willing to back down and apologize if noted. If you disagree with this, GRBerry, can you please cite the specific lines which justify the assumptions that the topic banned user "essentially promised to keep violating policy" and that "Benjiboi can get the topic ban reversed simply by modifying his stance toward editing the article, but he's made it clear he won't do so".— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 23:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Fay

An indef topic ban to prevent what? It isn't the topic that the user is concerned with, as the user has previously stated that he wants to distance himself from the subject, it is the way he was treated in regards to the topic ban. I still have yet to receive responses from my own concerning how he was treated. But as I was saying, it is not that the user is obsessed about this particular subject, it's about the fact that he was topic-banned in an unjust way without due-process. That is why another tried to clear his name in the past.

An indef ban without a warning to stop in the first place; when the editor wishes to distance himself from the subject, why is an indef topic-ban required?— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 07:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Fay

And I believe you are not looking at all that has been presented to you without bias. It has been stated several times that Benjiboi is no longer the user he once was, he is more calm, more collected, and if a topic becomes too heated he moves away.

Again you mention prevention. Prevention against what? It has bee quite awhile since this topic ban has been placed, and the user in question has already stated that he wishes to distance himself from the article. This is where I believe prevention becomes punishment, as this topic ban isn't preventing anything. There is no reason for this ban to be indefinate regarding our current circumstances.

As to the judging of this case without prejudice, as far as I can see from your first reject, you appear to only be looking at the past evidence, not the continued present evidence that this user has indeed changed from how he once was.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 05:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for writing here. This is just to avoid confusion since there two are sections dedicated to responding to my view below.
Daedalus. You state that Benjiboi is no longer the user he once was and if a topic becomes too heated he'd just move away. But then, you say that he has already stated that he wishes to distance himself from the article. My question is, if Benjiboi is not thinking about editing the article then what is the purpose of this request? Is it just a procedural one? Thanks. fayssal / Wiki me up® 07:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To remove a topic ban that shouldn't have been indefinate. Again, what is it preventing? You have now noted something which states that you read in information, so I need to repeat it. If Benjiboi has agreed to not edit the article, what is the purpose of continuing to ban him from the article, indefinately. Isn't there usually a time period placed on these? What necessates this ban to be indefinate?

Statement by JzG

What, again? We already went round this loop several times. The subject considers Benjoboi's edits to be agenda-driven and offensive, I concur that Benjiboi's edits and discussions there have proved inflammatory in the past, and the subject is a serial complainer to OTRS but it seems that things are currently quiet, we've not had a complaint for about four months I think, and I believe that topic-banning Benjiboi was a major factor in achieving peace - and this is not a reflection on Benjiboi, more on the history between the two, particularly in the matter of tireless advocacy of a meme which the subject vigorously denies and is based on interpretation of one passing comment in one interview - which many of us judged violated WP:UNDUE even if it passed WP:V, which is debatable.

The ticket list is not short and I don't think OTRS has the bandwidth to take this one up again right now, it's been a massive time-sink.

And the uber-ticket to which others were merged:

This doesn't mean anyone is evil, just that the mere presence of Benjiboi is inflammatory to this rather volatile article subject. There's no assertion that the article lacks neutrality as a result of Benjiboi's absence.

We have 8 million editors and 2.5 million articles, surely Benjiboi can accept that this particular article should simply be left to someone else? Guy (Help!) 11:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Benjiboi

Admin Guy (JzG) topic-banned me from Matt Sanchez citing a Morton's Fork, believe it or not, that the subject of that BLP, was distressed by my presence there. I was never warned or cautioned and the trigger incident seems to show I was on the side of reason so the whole matter has brought me unneeded wikistress. In this forum I've already been accused of promising to violate policy which is false, I pretty much always stated the opposite. This entire Sanchez drama has opened my eyes a bit more to gaming wikipedia and how admin tools should be used so I certainly have learned from this. Matt Sanchez, is a former gay porn star amongst other things. He used to edit here as well until he was community-banned for personal attacks amongst other violations. Since then he has apparently been taking opportunities to make his concerns known through the OTRS system regarding myself and other editors. More than all his personal attacks, and what I see as wikistalking of me I find the topic ban stressful as the admin seemed to pride themself on getting people banned and didn't bother to dialog with me to let me know there was any issue involving my editing. Personally I've been made aware of some information about the subject of the article's stability that makes me want to have nothing to do with that article and the other drama related to this entire affair affirm that decision. I notice soon after my case a recommendation to provide "A diff showing that the user has previously been cautioned at their talkpage about the sanctions" has been added to the WP:AE instructions.

If someone is misbehaving we dialog - especially if they have shown a willingness to communicate. That I can't wikilawyer well, is not, IMHO, a bad thing. Unlike the admin who banned me I take all bans seriously and not "no big deal". In addition, the original issues were 1. Citing content to the original source instead of YouTube - something I would have supported if it was presented as such. and 2. Discussing Sanchez's broadcasted, and later denied, statements he was a prostitute for men - we discuss uncomfortable material all the time, and after my ban there finally was a discussion but minus all those who had been driven anyway. I never advocated for including false information but instead advocated for discussing the issue of how to treat the sources and statement. It is central to Sanchex's notability and therefore seemed a relevant subject to discuss for possible use in the article. Take from this what you will but I will have nothing to do with it and my eyes are much further opened to issues of gaming and how to treat other editors. That the banning admin shows more good faith towards a community banned editor and paints me as inflamatory, offensive and trying to insert false information, etc. is a bit alarming but sadly I'm used to it. Sanchez was told that I was the last editor he could drive away from the article about him so it's little surprise that's what happened. Since the topic ban I haven't touched the article, and I want nothing to do with him or his article. The prostitution statement is verifiable but I no longer care and unless asked to participate with some compelling reason would rather not be involved with Sanchez on any level - if he again wikistalks me I will simply use AIV or ANI, etc. ::Banjeboi 19:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to jpgordon and GRBerry
  • "essentially promised to keep violating policy"
  • "Benjiboi can get the topic ban reversed simply by modifying his stance toward editing the article, but he's made it clear he won't do so"
This is patently false. I've never said I would violate policies and indeed stated throughout the process that I would do my best to follow policies and also indicated that if I was violating any policy to please let me know. I was, and am still against removing of sources without discussion but I have no interest in violating policies on that or any other article and my record suggests that following policies is what I do. -- Banjeboi 22:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to jpgordon

I would prefer that the topic ban be lifted, I feel it was a premature step, and unwarranted, and just because I have no interest in the article is no reason to hold an indefinite ban over my head. Treating editors in this manner is in poor taste and i would prefer to have my name cleared of this. -- Banjeboi 23:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also from WP:Ban "The Arbitration Committee can use a ban as a remedy usually following a request for arbitration. In the past these bans have nearly always been of limited duration, with a maximum of one year." I see no reason to keep a ban on an editor that may have been unneeded in the first place, has caused an otherwise good user stress and doesn't seem to be needed. Unclear what good is coming from what I see as a smear against my reputation. -- Banjeboi 23:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to FayssalF

This isn't prevention it's a punishment now, I've shown no obsession and my only wish is to clear my name. I would hope too that no one else was treated in this manner per WP:AGF policy. Editors in good standing shouldn't have to have a scarlet letter. The ban wasn't needed and an indefinite ban serves only to bring me stress. If I were to edit there again, had I any interest - which I don't - don't you think I would be unwaveringly cautious? Indeed I did learn more about BLP policies as a result of this as well as nuances of sourcing and image policy, hopefully we all learn from our mistakes. I have moved on and continue to learn as I go. My record on editing, I believe, is rather clear of any charges that I was in some way violating policies and when an issue comes up i look to the spirit of our policies as well as the letter of them. They exist not so we can punish each other but so we can creat and improve the project collaboratively.

So the only reason to hang an indefinite ban on someone is keep them away from an article they simply can't be trusted to follow policies on - that is not the case here. Instead the subject of the article, now forced by their using personal attacks and socks against myself and another editor (since banned), targeted me. An admin, who's got a bit of a reputation for heavy-handedness and over-zealousness, painted me as a problem editor and has perpetuated that through their accusations and, IMHO, lack of good faith towards me. And now this situation, which could have been easily resolved - on my end at least - is at the half-year mark as far as this episode is concerned. It's not preventing anything and it causes me grief. -- Banjeboi 20:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to FayssalF

Actually this is about both the admin's actions and the content editing issue, which again, I was never suggesting we violate BLP in any way but that we needed to have the discussion on controversial content to resolve it, just as we would do on any other BLP. Again it's being alleged I was, in some way, flaunting or violating BLP by even discussing the escorting issue. Instead I was trying to resolve it like every other thread there rather than having the very same issue subside and come up yet again as had been recurring on that article. Once the subject of the article had earned their site ban the talkpage was systematically cleaned up, largely due to my efforts, thread by thread - was ____ discussed?, is it resolved?, archive it and move on to current topics. The subject likely didn't appreciate my efforts even before they earned their ban because I usually didn't agree with them to insert fluff and dubious content that wasn't supported by RS or removing content that was supported by RS - this is all in the article archives going back to the beginning of the article's history. His notability hinged on being a former gay pornstar. In that industry the job is widely coupled with being, euphemistically, an escort for men. The escorting thread had been lingering and we were awaiting a transcript as recordings of the show were being discounted as RS, it wasn't resolved and the BLP subject was apparently badgering OTRS over it. The ban isn't actually preventing anything as has been laid out above so it really only serves to punish me and this seems contrary to AGF and banning policies. I have no interest in editing there or submitting changes to anyone, again as I've mentioned above and elsewhere. And this all could have been discussed and resolved diplomatically without going this route. I would feel the same about any editor being topic-banned in a similar manner - banning editors based on the subject of a BLP not liking them, for whatever reasons, is a terrible idea. In this case seems like a further gaming of Wikipedia's systems and they've succeeded by utilizing OTRS to ultimately drive away anyone who didn't agree with them. It's been suggested that the subject of the article can ban me per OTRS complaints but only gets the one. Also a really bad idea. They have demonstrated their disrespect for this community, in almost every way - repeatedly. Yet we're letting them dictate how we treat a generally good editor. -- Banjeboi 13:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sam Blacketer

I actually have calmed down quite a bit in my dealings with other editors, and except in AfD situations - where there is only a few days for any action - have learned to adapt to the concept that we aren't in a rush. I handle content issues better now and in this case I think I would have started or suggested an RFC to try to put the issue to rest. What has been implied repeatedly is that I want to simply add - or did add - controversial and unsourced content. That's simply not true, I wanted to have the discussion resolved what was usable and did the sourcing support it, it had been a source of ongoing debate and like all the other threads there I tried to find closure - could we use any of this or not. These are the same conversations we are suppose to have on borderline and controversial material.

the topic ban was subsequently debated with Benjiboi's participation
I walked into a forum where I was assumed guilty having to prove my innocence, I was shocked that I had been banned. Even in that forum people stated that generally my editing there was fine with a few transgressions that an apology and dialog about sourcing to the original broadcaster would have easily resolved. The banning admin showed no signs of changing their stance and readily dismissed my attempts as resolution and dialog insisting i would have to seek an overturn at Arbcom. So besides behaving myself, following policies, remaining civil throughout this ordeal, and being a good editor - all of which I've done - I'm wondering how I can clear my name of this. -- Banjeboi 21:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added note of clarity to Sam Blacketer

In response to I would need reassurance that Benjiboi understood how to improve behaviour.
I believe I've stated this numerous times but in case it needs repeating I now generally avoid using sarcasm and extend plenty of good faith towards other editors - even when I feel they are quite mistaken on an issue. There are plenty of admins who I have confidence to dispassionately offer assistance when needed so when dealing with problem editors or content I am happy to dialog when there is disagreement and am comfortable handing a situation off to others if it is warranted. I've walked away from quite a few articles now where the atmosphere was toxic or a battleground so taking a break or leaving it altogether was a good choice for me. Unsure what other assurance would help but I hope this helps. -- Banjeboi 10:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to John Vandenberg

We'll have to agree to disagree if the ban was premature and unwarranted, frankly some reasonable discussion, IMHO, would have resolved this quite easily. We'll never know though as it was never tried. The talkpage, at that point, was actually productive with dubious efforts being dismissed with policy and content questions being resolved in the same way. The trigger incident in this case was sourcing to the original broadcaster but was set-up, IMHO, in a manner that was antagonizing rather than collaborative. And just to ensure this is clear to all, I wasn't following Eleemosynary at all and had taken civility concerns to them as well as the subject of the BLP. I didn't always appreciate Eleemosynary's style but they were making valid points more so than the BLP subject and doing so much more civilly in general.
I also had nothing to do with any hacked accounts or the iirc page and this wasn't ever inferred to be caught up in that - as far as the AE board posting was concerned I was broadly painted as consistently failing to follow WP:BLP and engaging in activism - both of which are false. Sarcastic? rarely but yes, uncivil, rarely but yes. I did not, as has been alleged, suggest that RS issues were instead content issues nor did I violate BLP, consistently or otherwise. If I had it would have been helpful, like we do for anyone we think is consistently violating BLP, to point out what the problem is and then block them if they refuse to modify their editing. Just to note, the "topical area" is one article and the userpage of the article's subject, although I've never posted anything there but civility warnings that that user had earned many times over. As I've stated elsewhere, even if I weren't banned I'd avoid the article as it reflects poorly on the project so I don't want to be associated with it. Personally they've attacked me and I have received off-line information that makes me want to have nothing to do with them. -- Banjeboi 13:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note from GRBerry

The filing party does not link to the final version of the thread, in which Benjiboi did get a chance to respond, and essentially promised to keep violating policy in the same way he had been. The final version is archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive18#Matt Sanchez. GRBerry 13:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Random Question from Rocksanddirt

Has Benjiboi asked for a retraction of the topic ban? I recall the initial discussions, and agree with JzG that it seems that the issue is really between the subject and benjiboi, rather then some general failing of benjiboi to be a appropriate editor generally. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from John Vandenberg

If Benjiboi is willing to voluntarily stay away from this topic, I think it is reasonable to consider lifting the ban, unless there are other problems that are being raised here.

The topic ban of Benjiboi and Eleemosynary (talk · contribs) was neither premature nor unwarranted, as he claims. I agree with JzG that it was a necessary step to restore peace. The circumstances at the time were very unusual, with hacked email accounts and possibly even hacked Wikipedia accounts, so it was necessary that a few extreme measures were used to put a halt to the tendentious editing that was happening at the time; iirc page protection was also required in order to restore order. Thankfully Benjiboi has put this behind him, and not followed Eleemosynary into an indef block.

I dont recall whether this topic ban had a duration placed on it; if not, then I think putting a limit on the duration would be a good outcome of this discussion, in return for a voluntary admission that his editing in that topical area is inflammatory for reasons beyond his control, and therefore is not helpful for Wikipedia. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • CommentReject: Apparently this request is based on the procedure that led to the topic ban, as opposed to the reasoning and actions that resulted in the topic ban. I'm inclined to reject; tThough it's correct that Benjiboi doesn't appear to have been brought into the original conversation on 22-23 March, he quite fully explained his positions on 24 March, and did not succeed in altering the conclusion of the reviewing administrators. The same result would have occurred if JzG had warned Benjiboi of the impending topic ban and invited him to the discussion rather than taking immediate action. The likely result of an arbitration on this matter would be a principle that warning is good, a finding of fact that a warning wasn't given, and a remedy that that JzG should be reminded about issuing such warnings. None of that would invalidate the topic ban. Benjiboi can get the topic ban reversed simply by modifying his stance toward editing the article, but he's made it clear he won't do so, and as such it falls under the article probation in Bluemarine, and no further action is necessary. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to "reject". Given Benjiboi's comment above, the topic ban is harmless, since he has no intention of going to the article anyway; or, alternately, it could be said that the topic ban is working. I suggest the filer withdraw the action, since the actually subject doesn't seem to want or need it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. I am very uncomfortable with the obsession of editing one specific article (involving a specific edit) when there are millions out there. This is a wp:blp which has had a long history indeed. I'd prefer prevention than taking action. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 06:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Benjiboi and Daedalus, I believe you are talking about something like ruling on the administrator restriction itself rather than addressing the real issue. BLPs are serious stuff. This is not about AGF or a punitive action but about prevention. It happened before and we won't go there again. I see many Wikipedians taking administators' actions personally. We don't act with the same degree of seriousness when it comes to Pokemon-related articles. I'd prefer seeing you suggesting edits to admins rather than having the subject of the article spending his time with OTRS. fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. A WP:BLP about a controversial subject which has seen problematic edits (even if the subject was unaware and not expressing himself forcefully) is a place for calm editors and I fear Benjiboi's passion on the subject has led him to excessive zeal. The subject does not have a veto on who may edit his biography but I would need reassurance that Benjiboi understood how to improve his behaviour before considering whether to overturn the ban, and that I lack at present. The procedural point is one without substance; there are circumstances in which an editor can be restricted without having been warned, and as pointed out the topic ban was subsequently debated with Benjiboi's participation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. After reviewing the threads and the comments on this request, I do not think it benefits the writing of Wikipedia to remove the topic ban. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:49, 13 September 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 to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings

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


Statement by NonvocalScream (talk)

Can you amend this remedy so that this action can be permissible. At this time, the mentors can not do what they are doing, because PM was not editing a biography, he was editing AN, and a subject totally outside biographies?

They cite a remedy for which they can not apply here. Thank you, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • John: Nothing controversial here... just that in order to apply what you applied, the case //must// be amended. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • John: You have cited a remedy that was not applicable, how do you expect Arbcom to enforce it this way? It needs clarified or amended, no matter if all four of you agreed, AC needs to agree as well. This is not the precedent we set, mentors do not = arbcom. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw this request for amendment with the understanding that the mentorship extension at dissonance with the remedy, mutually agreed on between the four, and that the extension is broader in scope than what the Committee mandated and therefore the original enforceable mentorship ends at the unextended (pre extension expiration is still valid) time. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Vandenberg

I am just recently online, and have only just now seen an email from Lar informing me that there has been a request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings#Mentoring notices for clarification by the mentors and/or privatemusings.

NonvocalScream, that is based on your opinion of how the arbcom remedy was amended last time, and without an appreciation of how it is being applied. If you are right, and the mentoring arrangements have gone beyond the arbcom definition, and someone like you requires that we explicitly have arbcom approval for every detail of the mentoring, then we would have come to arbcom to seek their advice. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry for the delay. In order to re-assess properly whether the mentorship has been operating within the scope of the arbcom remedy, I have wanted to review the recent rfar clarification, and of course needed to review the related email discussions from the last month.

I think I speak for all the mentors that we have understood the arbcom remedy prefix "soley for the matter of editing biographies of living persons" as an indication that that is the outstanding set of problems that arbcom still sees the need to remedy, and also as a limitation on the remit of the mentorship.

So, how does this Moulton issue fit within the scope given to the mentorship? As Durova mentions, at the beginning of the mentoring arrangement, Lar proposed an overall strategy consisting of three stages, one for each month. One of the mentoring arrangements was that for the first month privatemusings was to alert the mentors in advance of any posts that are broadly interpreted as "what ArbCom was worried about", and waits for the mentors give an appraisal of the intended post. This is in context of three or four arbs initially commenting harshly on the "general lack of clue" shown by edits like this one made a few days prior to requesting the prior restrictions being lifted. We felt it was necessary for Privatemusings to keep his head down for the first month in order to apply himself to the task at hand.

At the three months, we as mentors need to be able to say that he has addressed the BLP problem, and we cant do that if he is preferring to spend his wiki-time wading into every drama he can find, or worse yet, initiating them like he did with this Moulton unblock request. Privatemusings hasnt kept his end of the bargain, resulting in only 30 rather simple content edits over the last month. As a result, the mentors have decided that a much more focused approach is needed to ensure he undertakes actual editing during this three month period. We need evidence of good editing rather than the lack of bad evidence. He needs to get a better appreciation for the need for good editing practises, in order to obtain a release from the shadow over his head. If he isnt going to focus on serious editing in the three months, I dont feel right letting the mentorship continue for two more months as a charade.

We have decided on the basics of the new more focused approach for the coming month, however we are waiting on privatemusings to give us some thoughts on the specifics and his preferences. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Also part of the mentoring arrangement was that the clock being reset if he didnt stick to the three stage plan. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@WAS 4.250, I agree wholeheartedly with the message Create. We are hoping that privatemusings does more of that in the coming months. The mentorship arrangement doesnt not require that he seek our permission to do that he wants; otoh, it does attempt to curtail his tendency to treat this as a free speech project. If he wants representation, for himself or for others, that comes at a price: free content. As another example, refer to User:Privatemusings/A walk on a path in a garden#Talk:Giovanni di Stefano, where Privatemusings waxed lyrical whilst proposing to edit an article that the arbitrator Newyorkbrad explicitly told Privatemusings to steer clear of in the last clarification discussion. I have privately told him that his involvement in the Wikiversity project is a good thing, but warned him to ensure that his edits there over the duration of this mentoring stage are of the kind that all arbcom members will decide are constructive and well intended, 'cause the committee members are sure to look. The three months of mentoring is in vain if his mentors do not unanimously agree that the problems identified in the last arbcom case appear to be able to put to bed safely, or if the arbcom members review his contributions over this period and come to the view that the problems remain, that he has hasnt done much here. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Troikoalogo, the notice was public, and hit AN, as it was a unanimous agreement of the mentors that in the last month, privatemusings had not cut the mustard. If we hadnt disclosed the "clock reset" publicly, two months from now we would have had people wondering why we hadnt notified everyone publicly at this stage. It seems like the only way to have streamlined this would have been to ask Arbcom to reset the clock instead of doing it ourselves. We live and learn. p.s. Privatemusings wished, and the committee agreed, to give me this plastic sheriff's badge.  :-) He is welcome to have it back if he likes. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Avruch

Doesn't the remedy state "solely for the purpose of editing biographies of living people" or something to that effect? If the mentorship agreement stipulates a wider area of supervision, it has nothing to do with the Arbitration Committee. Also, and importantly, this seems premature. Privatemusings hasn't had the opportunity to make his view known on that page.

Noting Durova's post below, it seems likely that Privatemusings agreed to the extension. Nonvocalscream - in the future, it might be good sense to contact the participants involved before posting a clarification request in a situation where you do not have all the relevant facts. Avruch T 02:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

John is correct: Lar's proposal allowed discretionary extension within the realm, broadly defined that could reasonably be considered what arbcom was worried about. All parties agreed that extension was appropriate, including Privatemusings.

A summary of the matter is that Privatemusings has a track record of intervening in high tension areas in a manner which--although well intentioned--tends to consume administrative attention. Editors who are successful participants in Wikipedia namespace have usually acquired an intuitive grasp of site dynamics from article building. We are in agreement that Privatemusings would benefit from more mainspace editing experience, preferably sustained attention to building a single biography article. Our goal is a guided approach that would leave Privatemusings well equipped to function independently at the end of the mentorship term. A review of the first month led to the conclusion that not enough progress had been made yet.

Request withdrawal of this motion. We aim to reduce onsite drama, not increase it, and the decision was reached with unanimous agreement. DurovaCharge! 01:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Dan: assume good faith is policy. Before attempting to attribute a negative motivation, an appropriate prelude would be consultation with any of the parties or at least a review of the editor's contributions. Privatemusings has averaged approximately one mainspace edit per day since mentorship began, mostly minor wikignome work. It is our opinion that two more months' mentorship at this level would be insufficient. Editors who take on the site's hot button disputes, sensitive BLPs, etc. and make difficult situations better are usually people who bring experience from thousands of mainspace edits--often having shepherded articles from stub-class to GA or FA. The concern is that PM's interest in resolving such situations, unless tempered by better field experience, runs a likelihood of missteps that would ultimately lead either the community or the Committee to a pragmatic assessment of his productivity as an editor v. the scarce administrative time consumed by his attempts to assist in sensitive areas. We, the mentors, wish him success and have agreed upon this course of action with his consent. DurovaCharge! 03:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Nonvocal Scream: mentorship is by its nature a consensual relationship. Declared or undeclared, mandated or voluntary--it cannot be effective without the consent and active participation of all parties. It works best in an environment of trust and goodwill. Privatemusings's best interests ought to be our driving concern, not the establishment of formal statements about the legitimacy of this or that adjustment. Good mentoring responds naturally to changes in circumstance. I think I speak for all the mentors here in saying it would be much more constructive to engage us in dialog if such serious concern arises again about our mutual choices, rather than initiating preemptive formal motions that--even at best--must consume energies better spent on mentoring itself. DurovaCharge! 05:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dtobias

I'm not particularly pleased with what can be seen as a punitive action against somebody for the sole reason of their sticking their neck out with a WikiPolitical opinion that others find politically incorrect. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Lar

To Dan: I agree 100% with you, I'm not at all about punitive actions. However this action is not punitive. Per Durova, we're (by mutual agreement, including that of Privatemusings himself) taking him on a path to enlightenment. That includes aiding PM in improving situational awareness about what's prudent and what isn't. A mentorship does after all include some actual learning by the mentoree or else it's not successful. We probably should post the email that outlines our mutually agreed upon approach, though. I note that the three of us are not always on the same side (of anything) and yet we mutually agree PM acted imprudently here. Mentorships work best when the elbows of the mentors aren't jiggled. Agree with Durova that this motion is ill advised and should be shelved. NVS no doubt knows better now, although I think he meant well. ++Lar: t/c 03:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To NVS: A clarification: ArbCom does not enforce remedies. We, the collective users of the site, do. If this mentorship fails (and I really hope it does not... we did not do this reset because we want failure, we did it because we want success!) it will be up to us (1500 admins, millions of users) all to enforce the rest of this decision. ++Lar: t/c 04:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: User:Privatemusings/A_walk_on_a_path_in_a_garden/A_threefold_path_to_enlightenment (a subpage of where the article specific discussions have been held) This process was agreed to in advance via email. Perhaps it should have been documented on-wiki rather than privately, but privately seemed a good approach at the time for "respect for the individual" reasons. ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by User:WAS 4.250

I would just like to reflect here on how far off the initial path we have come. The free culture movement began with copy left software and now has Wikipedia as its most public example. The opposite of free culture is called in the movement "permission culture". Stop asking permission. Create. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


If PM wants to enter into a private agreement to be mentored in orange-eating ((c) fayssal - below) then that's his affair. But when his orange-eating regime is then posted in large letters on government buildings as if it were a wanted poster, then the citizens are entitle to ask "WTF?".

If a private agreement, why was this posted on arbcom enforcement (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings#Privatemusings_placed_under_mentorship)? And why did it need posted to AN [2] as if it were a sanction for PM's postings about Moulton's block. A private agreement, should be a private agreement, and a matter for e-mail and talk pages. The effect of the way this has been handled is at variance with Durova's stated intent "to reduce onsite drama, not increase it" - it looks official and putative and has an obvious chilling effect.

The intention may be good, the mentorship unobjectionable, but I still think that some people have let the plastic sheriffs' badges go to their heads. --Troikoalogo (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Privatemusings

In a few hours time, barring objections, I'll post all the email correspondence to subpage in my mentoring area (this has been discussed a bit between the four of us, and my reading is that permission has been clearly granted - but it's better to be safe than sorry! In fact, I'd say some commentators thus far have probably been a bit 'hasty'. I don't think I agree with some that's been said, and I'll write stuff up in a bit. :-) Privatemusings (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't post the email correspondence, because I'd misunderstood, and I don't have permission. I'd like to edit unencumbered by an arbcom restriction as soon as possible.
I understand my mentors' worry that my post to AN was impolitic / unwise, and I further understand the point of view that posting controversially can waste resources, is in someways disruptive, and undesirable, though I think it's a rocky road, and by no means fully agree.
I need to talk through more fully the perspectives that my mentoring programme has been disappointing, or that I haven't kept my end of the bargain, because I don't really understand them yet (I've actually been really pleased and proud with what I've been up to!)
there may be merit in arb.s clarifying how they see the 90days working from their perspective (per Nonvoc's final point above), and if there's any stuff folk want to chat about, swing by my talk page or drop me an email any time. Privatemusings (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)although I think an eggshell ballet may work out better for me than making omelets! - and better yet! - go write an article :-)[reply]
ps. just 'cos it might actually be relevant, I should note that I'm heading out, likely for at least 24 hours, now :-) Privatemusings (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Tom harrison

Maybe the way we can avoid drama is to keep most of our edits in article space. Tom Harrison Talk 21:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gladys J Cortez

When I saw the addition of the "mentoring extension" notice at the bottom of the "Moulton unblock" thread, it seemed to me, by the placement and the wording, that the extension was caused by Privatemusings' request for the unblock of a controversial user. Now, obviously from what's been said since, that's a complete misread of the circumstances--but it's also clear that I wasn't the only one who misread it that way. Had the notice of mentorship been placed somewhere less-proximate to the Moulton thread, I wonder if this confusion and the resulting drama might not have been avoided. Just an opinion, anyway...Gladys J Cortez 21:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • If Privatemusings entered into a mentorship agreement that was broader in scope than what the Committee mandated, then as Avruch says, that is his business, not the Committee's. That then begs the question of what did Privatemusings agree to? I await his input here before saying anything more. --bainer (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies to Privatemusing and NVS if my comment would sound inappropriate but I am sure you would understand that it is meant to clarify some interesting issues related to drama. The drama goes this way... Once upon a time, there was someone who ate chocolate more than his body could afford, so the doctors advised his parents to keep monitoring his chocolate diet until the body becomes able to fathom and get adapted to some degree of chocolate consumption. Recently, he started eating oranges (in a normal way - no exaggeration yet) and immediately their neighbors went asking doctors to clarify if eating oranges is permissible. fayssal / Wiki me up® 06:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=238320256

Leave a Reply