WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review (WP:RREV).

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

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

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

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

Unapproved Admin Bots

Initiated by Prodego ^talk at 19:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Prodego (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Misza13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• east718 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Cyde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Chris G (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adminbots

Statement by Prodego

For the past several years, the subject of 'adminbots' has been a touchy one on Wikipedia. There is a common perception that these adminbots are opposed by the 'ZOMGADMINBOT' crowd^[1], who are worried about evil admin bot overlords taking over the wiki. Unfortunately, this attitude overshadows the legitimate complaints with admin bots, and more specifically unauthorized admin bots. Unlike all other unauthorized blocks, unauthorized admin bots are often ignored, instead of being blocked, as policy prescribes.^[2][3] I think that this situation touches on some very important issues, including: (1) a different treatment of admins simply because they are admins (2) following a consensus among a minority that that is unable to gain wider consensus to change the policies to simply allow these types of bots (3) users taking the attitude that they are 'above' policy, or that it does not apply to them (4) lack of respect for the policies that have developed over time. Particularly in regards to this 4th point, is important to remember that policy is not law. However, if attempts have been made to change a policy, and they have repeatedly failed, simply ignoring the policy is not an acceptable line of action, it is disruption. Ignoring all rules is a great way to allow unanticipated and productive edits that would normally be against policy, but it is not intended to be applied against a policy that is already in place, and that has already developed a consensus on the exact issue for which you wish to ignore it. The users listed above have all admitted to running an unauthorized adminbot in some form^{[4][5][6][7][8]}, and (quoting Misza13) "will not request any approval simply because... the bot already is approved, authorized or whatever you call it and operaties[sic] within policy. If that policy is IAR." I find disregarding an established and well followed bot request procedure simply because you don't personally find it necessary to be a problem, and I hope that the arbcom will resolve this issue. I declined to simply block these users as policy suggests, under advice from a number of users, who suggested I file an arbitration case instead. I hope that the arbcom can solve this long term contentious user conduct issue once and for all. Thank you.

Statement by Cyde Weys

Admin bots have been common practice for, what, over two years now? I don't see what arbitration will achieve. Rewrite the policy to reflect current practice and be done with it. --Cyde Weys 19:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved) CBM

There has been ongoing discussion about the issue of adminbots at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adminbots. A change was proposed in the bot policy some time ago [6], and yesterday I removed the "proposed" sticker. It seems to me that (1) the issue here is that the bot policy has been out of sync for a long time, as descriptive policies often are, and (2) that problem is being resolved through discussion already. For the record, although I am familiar with bots and adminbots, I don't run any adminbots. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Миша13

This filing is an example of feeding one's process-wonky needs - playing the process for the sake of it. Not only Prodego is in error in his/her statement that other dispute resolution steps have been tried, he/she does not make clear what the arbitration is supposed to accomplish. ArbCom is not for making you feel warm and fuzzy about the process. On top of that, he/she is citing me with limited context and even then ignoring parts of it (specifically the part about the bot being already "approved, authorized or whatever you call it"). Plz u b wrting an lolenziklopedia, kthx. Миша13 19:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MBisanz

I think we may be short some parties here, bot policy says:

Bots (short for "robots") are generally programs or scripts that make automated edits without the necessity of human decision-making.

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Adminbots#List_of_adminbots_and_admins_running_deletion_scripts lists several admins running automated scripts for admin activities who are not named in this RFAR. They probably ought to be added if ArbCom decides to take a global look at this issue. MBisanz ^talk 19:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Majorly

There have been numerous issues with admin bots in the past. I can't think of any specifically, but I do remember an occasion when Misza13 (or rather, his bot) blocked a user because of a so-called bad username, and it wasn't. I remember him defending his (bot's) action, saying words to the effect of "99% of its blocks are good". That isn't good enough, it needs to be 100%. If this bot is so important and works so well, it should be approved like the one other approved admin bot, User:RedirectCleanupBot. Majorly ^talk 20:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by krimpet✽

The point of IAR is to "be bold, but not reckless." Some of our community-elected admins have been running semi-automated and automated tools to help ease the workload for all and keep the project running behind the scenes. The engineering of these tools has been extremely careful and precise - one could say the "gray-area" nature of these tools has encouraged a very high level of quality assurance, since any false positives or bugs would probably lead to a huge, contentious discussion (like what led to the Betacommand arbitration case). If the filing party can provide some evidence on how these admins have actually caused disruption or harm since that case, that would be great... but I am not aware of any since then. krimpet✽ 20:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

• I haven't even really started formulating my views on the issues underlying this request, but I would appreciate more detail on whether there are any specific problems associated with these various actual or alleged adminbots, as opposed to a purely procedural or policy issue. I'm not belittling policy or procedure bu any means, but this issue would have a heightened degree of seriousness if the bots in question are doing something incorrect or controversial (compare, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand), as opposed to simply being arguably procedurally unauthorized. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Racism section at Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses

Initiated by Jeffro77 (talk) at 17:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Jeffro77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Cmmmm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mandmelon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

• Cmmmm
• Mandmelon

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#JW racism in the controversies section of the general article
• Talk:Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses#race
• Talk:Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses#Other editor's input required

Cmmmm has not attempted to resolve the dispute, though clear and specific objections to the material have been given in the 'race' section of the Talk page. Because Mandmelon agreed with Cmmmm that 'race' as a general controversy regarding JWs should be mentioned (to which I did not object), Cmmmm sought support of Mandmelon at User talk:Mandmelon#Controversies regarding_Jehovah's_Witnesses for the references objected to, though Mandmelon has not commented further.

Statement by Jeffro77

Cmmmm seeks to restore the following references under his racism section:

...it would be very surprising indeed if Jehovah's Witnesses - even today a community largely composed of converts - did not carry with them many of the values and attitudes of the larger societies out of which they have come. Hence one often finds among ordinary Witnesses a certain degree of rather covert prejudice towards persons of other nationalities or races. Occasionally one may hear Witnesses, high and low, make racial slurs. (Penton, 1985:286)."

Most mainstream religions say racism is bad. Those religions, like any other social group, have a distribution of members who are racist or make racist comments. The comment above is therefore not notable. This reference suggests that racism occurs among JWs at the same rate as within general society, which does not support any special tendency toward racism, nor that such is endorsed by the religion. It is therefore not controversial, and of no relevance to the topic in the article. The other reference objected to is:

Jehovah's Witnesses practiced segregation of blacks until the late 1950s<ref>Watchtower, April 1,1914:110 "Recognizing that it meant either the success or the failure of the...[Photo] Drama as respects the whites, we have been compelled to assign the colored friends to the gallery... Some were offended at this arrangement. We have received numerous letters from the colored friends, some claiming that it is not right to make a difference, others indignantly and bitterly denouncing [us] as enemies of the colored people. Some ... told us that they believe it would be duty to stand up for equal rights and always to help the oppressed.... We again suggested that if a suitable place could be found in which the Drama could be presented for the benefit of the colored people alone, we would be glad to make such arrangements, or to cooperate with any others in doing so"</ref>

A reference about a single period of time (in 1914) regarding the showing of the 'Photo Drama' is being used to allege that segregation was a general practice for several decades up to at least the 1950s. This reference cannot be validly used to support a claim of general segregation as a rule.

Statement by Cmmmm

Cmmmm has refused to offer any comment dealing with the specific issues raised, but claims that his continued reverts are to a 'non-biased' version, and a claim at Mandmelon's talk page that: "Jeffro77 delets always necessary content on this page. Please help." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffro77 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 17 September 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)

• Comment. From my initial read of the situation, this appears to be primarily a content dispute. The Arbitration Committee usually takes cases that deal with user misconduct after community intervention has not worked. I'm not seeing the need for the Committee to take action in this situation. Other methods of dispute resolution need to be tried first. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Reject, per above comment and addition discussion at User talk:FloNight#Arbitration Request. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline at this time per FloNight's comment. Assistance from an uninvolved administrator would be helpful in resolving this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline, content. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Topic Ban of Benjiboi

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

Involved parties

• Daedalus969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Benjiboi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Diff. 1 Topic Blocked user notified.
• Diff. 2 Blocking admin notified.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

• Diff. 1 Topic Blocked user notified.
• Diff. 2 Blocking admin notified.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1
• Link 2

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?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 04:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Flo

How does it benefit the writing of Wikipedia to keep this ban in place indefinately?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 09:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, but that doesn't answer my question. Why should this ban remain in place forever? What purpose does it serve if the editor in question has already said he wishes to distance himself from the article? What is the harm in removing it?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 21:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

• VRTS ticket # 2008051910007247
• VRTS ticket # 2008032910004467
• VRTS ticket # 2008022710022631
• VRTS ticket # 2008022410002194
• VRTS ticket # 2008020910013442

And the uber-ticket to which others were merged:

• VRTS ticket # 2007041410014448

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]

Response to FloNight

Although generalized, the policy page regarding bans states "partial bans are sometimes used when a user's disruptive activities are limited to a specific page or subject matter". I believe my case would be deemed as borderline disruption, at best, and, has been previously stated could have easily been addressed with discussing the matter prior to any administrative action.
"Where appropriate, partial bans may extend to include talk pages." I never did anything out of line on that user's talkpage yet it too was thrown in, seemingly in a leap of bad faith that I would start being disruptive on that user's talkpage with no evidence that such a thing would occur.
I have remained civil throughout this ordeal and maintain a ban that could have been utilized after other approaches had been tried and failed, especially with editors that are seen to be quite reasonable and responsive. Regardless I've done nothing on the article since then, nor do I have any interest to so this ban serves only to shame me, a good editor by all accounts. The article has been left far behind by myself with only this ban serving as a continual reminder of what has been a learning lesson and, quite often, a painful one. That the ban was done in the first place is lamentable - that it continues to be enforced for no purpose is not prevention of any sort, but punishment which would seem to go against the spirit of why we block and ban disruptive users. I seek to clear my name of this - if it also helps to keep other editors from being treated as such then that would also be a good outcome. Good editors should be encouraged to contribute constructively to the project not treated bureaucratically when a civil discussion would clear up problems just as well. -- Banjeboi 04:04, 15 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.

• I have adjusted the formatting of all statements in this thread, to have all sections of the type "response to X" using bold titling, as opposed to <h5> formatting. Anthøny ✉ 19:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 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]

My judgment is that the status quo, a topic ban, is for the best for the article and all involved people, including Benjiboi. With the arbitrators giving their opinions, I hope that Benjiboi will get involved with editing other aspects of Wikipedia and not let this weigh on his mind any longer. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline per my colleagues' comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Clarifications and other requests

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

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

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

• Gazimoff (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Gazimoff

I am requesting clarification from Arbcomm regarding the case above. This discussion may appear to be slightly premature, but I feel that it is appropriate to raise a request for clarification in order to minimise the potential for further disruption. TTN has been involved in two Arbcomm cases relating to content disputes. As a result of those cases, TTN has been subject to the following remedies.

The remedy from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters stated the following:

• The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute.

The remedy from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 stated the following:

• TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
• The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute

TTN was since blocked twice for violating these restrictions as recorded here The restriction placed upon him lapsed without extension on September 10th, 2008. Since that date, TTN has created a high number of deletion discussions. The concern here is not about the articles, templates and so on being listed for deletion. It is more about the high volume of content being listed for deletion in a short space of time only days after a lapsed editing restriction prohibiting this behaviour. Such action can potentialy stretch any cleanup team a wikiproject may have over a large number of articles, potentially reducing the quality of debate that can occur and leaving TTN open to criticisms of working against the wikiprojects involved.

The requests for clarification are as follows:

• Does Arbcomm feel that the editing restrictions listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 met their required objective in encouraging good working practice from a long-term contributor?
• How does Arbcomm regard the large number of deletion discussions that have been started in relation to the encouragement "to work collaboratively and constructively" as stated at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters
• Would Arbcomm have any further reccomendations in this area in order to minimise further disruption?

I appreciate that Arbcomm are limited in resource, and hope that by presenting this concern early and cleanly, clarification can be reached with minimal impact on the project.

See also related discussion

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TTN nominating large numbers of pages for deletion (link contributed by Coppertwig (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by GRBerry

Related WP:AE threads are currently at (reverse chronological order):

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Violation of TTN's restriction?
2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive26#Eusebeus
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive22#Eusebeus still edit-warring over TV episode articles (partial copy also in archive 21)
4. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive21#TTN and Sonic the Hedgehog characters
5. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive20#Unreasonably broad interpretation
6. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive20#User:TTN
7. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive20#TTN and notability tagging?
8. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive20#And so it begins again

There have also been plenty of AN, ANI, et cetera threads involving many parties. I conclude that remedy #2 "The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute." has failed. GRBerry 18:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the threads with Eusebeus's names in them were not selected for inclusion because I have any concerns about his actions, they were included to help the committee realize that the "all get together and sing Kumbaya" recomendation of remedy is not working and not going to work. In the archive 26 thread, DGG observed "The disputed cases are about minor characters in the most important fictional works, such as plays by Shakespeare, and even major characters in relatively unimportant works." No consensus is going to form that draws a hard and fast line with no grey zone ("no character articles" or "if the work can have an article, every character can have there own article" are both thoroughly rejected by the community. So long as there is a grey zone, there will be disagreements and need for community discussion. The committee should only make sure that reasonable conduct bounds are drawn and enforced for that discussion. GRBerry 03:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eusebeus

• • I invite GRBerry to demonstrate how the threads involving me that he links to above involve in any way TTN. They don't, and he should remove them forthwith as needless, irrelevant and inflammatory. Shame on you. Eusebeus (talk) 05:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by sgeureka

One way to look at it: TTN is quickly destroying the 'pedia with his quick AfDs. Do something about it.

Another way to look at it: Crappy fiction articles get created (in good faith) faster than they can be dealt with through what-some-would-label "recommended" channels. Cleanup templates get ignored for months (usually because the articles cannot be improved), merge proposals for popular yet crappy articles often get shot down through local fan consensus or take forever (by which time tons of new crappy articles have been created), and bold redirects or bold mergers for popular yet crappy articles get reverted and have demonstratedly already led to severe arbcom restrictions when someone tried to enforce to leave the redirects in place. AfDs however, especially for long-time cleanup-tagged articles, get quick results with community consensus. Not perfect but accomplishes the goal in the absense of other workable solutions.

Summa summarum: Leave dedicated editors at least one tool to keep up with the desperately needed cleanup. Or: fight the source of the problem (creation of crappy and unimprovable articles), not the symptom (AfDs). – sgeureka ^t•c 19:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by A Man In Black

Bearing in mind where my obvious biases are, what's the harm in a bunch of AFDs of articles that will all either be deleted or merged? TTN was censured for edit warring, not cleanup. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fut.Perf

TTN is right. Censoring him was wrong from the start. It really is as simple as that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DGG (talk)

Based on a comment by TTN on my talk page, [7], I suggested there that the AfDs are being brought deliberately because of TTN's knowledge that they will not be approved at the article talk page. This is essentially the same behavior that the arb com was first asked to address--as it is in essence continuing, with afds showing no previous attempt to discuss, in clear violation of deletion policy, the restriction should be made permanent. There are a great many articles needing redirection , merge, or deletion. There are are a great many other editors to propose them. DGG (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PhilKnight - responding to DGG

In situations where an episode or character article doesn't comply with notability guidelines, the article talk page is invariably dominated by editors who are vehemently opposed to any merge, let alone deletion. The problem is one of a local consensus attempting to override policy and guidelines. The obvious solution is to take the article to AfD. Accordingly, what DGG describes as a "clear violation of deletion policy" is normal practice for this topic area. Also, looking at WP:DELETION, there doesn't appear to be any requirement to start discussion before nominating the article. Obviously, it's good practice to notify the article creator, and perhaps even some of the other editors, however for deletion (as opposed to deletion review), I can't see any requirement for prior discussion.

Statement by Protonk

So long as non-community enforced pathways for dealing with marginal and sub-marginal fictional articles result in intractable stalemates and so long as the community cannot agree on a daughter notability guideline to deal clearly and appropriately with these articles, we will have situations like this. AfD is a perfectly acceptable route for dealing with articles which do not meet our inclusion guidelines. Since we have no real agreed upon guidelines that are binding concerning lists of characters, episodes and other daughter articles, AfD may be the preferred route. We may wish, in an abstract sense, that editors discussed improvement, then proposed mergers, then discussed why the merger didn't gain consensus, then prod, then nominate for deletion, but any editor who learns from past experiences will be tempted to skip steps. I see this as a policy issue that needs to be worked out by the community. We don't have an agreed upon way to treat characters and episodes (as it were), so we have problems like this. Fix that policy issue and we have fixed most of the problem.

Statement by User:Randomran

We need to assume good faith, rather than assuming that TTN is somehow on a vengeful mission after being locked away for 6 months. TTN got himself in trouble when he WP:BOLDly redirected pages en masse. He's learned his lesson, and is now soliciting the feedback of neutral Wikipedians in AFD. "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article guidelines and policies." I do not echo his support for deletion in each and every case, but he's using the process as it is designed. Anything else is a discussion of actual content: discussions that TTN has initiated, and cannot unilaterally decide. That's how Wikipedia works.

That said, I might advise TTN that he could generate more good will by nominating AFDs at more scattered intervals. He hasn't broken any policy, consensus, or arbitration decision. But this does needlessly inflame the inclusionists. The WP:DEADLINE applies as much to clean-up as it does to anything else: what's your hurry? Randomran (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RyanGerbil10

So User:X was told not to do Y for Z period of time, X did not do Y until after Z (as asked), and now we're back at ArbCom? Seems to defeat the purpose if you ask me. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 19:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comment, I'm aware of this request. I've briefly looked into the situation. I'm not seeing a problem that needs Committee action at this time. The Community needs to deal with the content policy issues involved, not ArbCom. I do not see any user conduct that approaches disruption. I urge all involved parties to listen to the input of other users. Before giving input to other users or taking an action, try putting yourself in the other persons shoes and thinking about how what you do and say will be received. Be understanding that other people have different views, and that they want what is best for Wikipedia, the same as you do. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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:

• NonvocalScream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Durova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jayvdb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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]

• PM: Kindof sortof? But can you answer more fully, did the mentor group have informed consent, or not? NonvocalScream (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on this answer I am under the impression that the mentorship extension occurred outside the mandate. My motion remains withdrawn with my earlier opinion on the dissonance. Whether or not the Arbitration Committee modifies the remedy to fit this extension, are allows the extension to expire naturally will be completely up to the other party, mentors and arbitrators. I will ask that any further agreements of this nature take place on the wiki before such announcements of extensions take place. This type of action should be on the wiki. Absent any modification, I will clear the extension from the arbitration case page Log of blocks and bans in a few days time. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• JV: No threats, just that you really can't do things in accordance with a remedy, if it is not really in accordance with a remedy. Surely my correcting the AC page will not disrupt your intentions. A quick scan of AN reveals that I was not the only one confused at this odd extension. As for structural damage - do you seriously think that this has damaged a mentoring relationship? You are mentors, not arbiters. So mentor. You did this extension on odd grounds, not me. On wiki actions are open to review. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• JV: Very well. Then I will take my hands off. I trust you all - I just want to see this handled well - PM has great potential. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Flonight: Agree and suggest - "For the purposes of editing success, Privatemusings (talk · contribs) is placed under the mentorship of User:Lar, User:Jayvdb, and User:Durova. The mentorship will expire after ninety days from acceptance of this motion. Mentorship arrangements may be extended at the descretion of the mentors." This is my suggestion. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:40, 15 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]

@NonvocalScream, your involvement in this has caused more complication and confusion than it has solved. You brought the matter to arbcom, so please dont complicate things further by boldy clerking the matter based on your "impressions" - we can do without that. As an update, privatemusings has now emailed the mentors so the train is back on the track. Mentoring discussion to check for structural damage is now getting underway, but may be protracted due to timezones and the heightened tension caused by this also being on arbcoms desk. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Yes, it definitely derailed what the mentors unanimously considered to be the right next step, and it prevented privatemusings from comfortably letting us know what he thought the (different) direction he thought it should take. We are not trying to be arbitrators, but if we dont undertake to mentor properly, the arbitrators will be less likely to let others out of their bonds early onto the path to enlightenment. I can see why you consider this to be an unapproved extension of the remedy, but at the time it seemed plain that privatemusings was in full knowledge of this when it was being discussed, and had spectacularly forgotten more recently and when he had to be reminded of it at User:Privatemusings/A walk on a path in a garden#Talk:Giovanni di Stefano. I agree that the mentoring plan should have been onwiki a long time ago, and sent to arbcom-l formally to ensure they were 100% happy with it. But those things didnt happen, out of laziness and the lack of foresight, and we find ourselves here. I dont mind if you go remove the notice from the arbcom page, but I dont see why it is necessary. There are clerks who can do that. It would be great if you let us untangle it, or hand it over to arbcom to untangle. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:44, 15 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. Durova^Charge! 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. Durova^Charge! 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. Durova^Charge! 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]

Statement by User:Troikoalogo

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 [8] 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]

@bainer - the answer is kinda sorta... you can see the correspondence here... I should have taken the time to respond more substantially to the tension between the arb mandate and the mentoring terms previously, and I really think that any miscommunication is my fault - hopefully we're moving on now on a good foot :-) I certainly wish to edit unencumbered by an arbcom restriction as soon as possible. :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:31, 15 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]

Clerk notes

Regarding NVS' stated intention to clear the extension from the logs of the arb case, I encourage the arbs to address this issue in their ruling. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Ok, so I gather these are the terms that the mentors and PM arranged. It purports to create a mentorship scheme applying to two things, firstly any proposed edits to BLPs, and secondly "any posts, broadly construed, that might fit into 'what ArbCom was worried about' (cases, policy and the like)". It also provides for the mentors to reset the process. This goes beyond what was mandated by the motion. What was mandated was mentorshop "[s]olely for the matter of editing [BLPs]" (emphasis added). Further, the motion provided for expiry in ninety days "[i]f no issues arise"; this was not particularly clear, but it should be understood to mean that the Committee can extend the mentorship if issues arise.

Of course, as has been said PM and his mentors are free to agree to terms of mentorship that go beyond what the Committee mandated, and if they wish to do so then I wish them all the best. However, from the circumstances, I do not think that is what has happened here; I believe that PM and his mentors have constructed terms on a misapprehension about the meaning of the motion. The mandated mentorship is limited "[s]olely for the matter of editing [BLPs]", and does not extend to "cases, policy and the like". If we had intended that we would have said so.

I think now PM and his mentors need to work out some terms once more with the understanding that the mentorship mandated by the Committee extends only to editing BLPs and is subject to review by us at the end of the ninety days. --bainer (talk) 11:56, 15 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]
• Per Thebainer, this was a voluntarily entered into agreement. Having in effect delegated to the mentors the responsibility of overlooking Privatemusings' contributions it would not be right to supervise them excessively in so doing. So I'm not inclined to intervene; however I would say this. Suppose (for the sake of argument, I'm not saying this is something he would actually do) Privatemusings had gone blanking large sections of history articles that had nothing to do with living people. That would be disruptive; is it argued that the mentors must ignore it because it is not about BLPs? I don't think that's reasonable. Finally, logs of blocks and bans should be kept up to date and not blanked unless authorised by the committee or its clerks. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I support John, Durova, and Lar's approach to handling this mentorship. In general a mentor's close working relationship with their trainee, even during a focused one such as this one, necessitates them keeping an eye on other aspects of their trainee's contributions. In this situation in particular, getting to the root of the problem is important if PM is going to succeed as an editor on Wikipedia. While this mentorship was formed to focus on the removal of the BLP restriction, the other concerns identified in Privatemusings case indicate that simply educating about the BLP policy and monitoring PM's contributions is most likely not going to achieve the enlightenment needed to succeed in editing BLPs. For mentorships to succeed, a broader approach is often needed, and I think John, Lar, and Durova understood that going into the situation. For example, a discussion about good communication methods and then coaching a trainee in ways to achieve their desired goals through good communication is appropriate during most mentorships and is key to the success of this one. Based on my view about mentorships, I see no need for us to alter the wording of the motion, but if others disagree then I think we need to expand the wording to give them free reign to do what is needed to achieve the best outcome. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---