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.

Cold fusion

Parties

• Jehochman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Pcarbonn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - notified
• SheffieldSteel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - notified
• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - notified

Prior steps in dispute resolution

Prior threads:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed topic ban: User:Pcarbonn from Cold fusion and related articles
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive490#Please_review_this_case
  • Recent diffs cited as troublesome: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive490#diffs_just_from_November
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_27#Request for injunction against Cold Fusion investor
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive157#Cold_fusion
• 2 prior cases had been rejected by ArbComm ([1] and [2])

Mediation:

• The dispute has been the subject of formal mediation
• A prior mediation case had been rejected by one party.

Statement by Jehochman

I bring you a case about Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and an alleged Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. User:Pcarbonn has been involved in a long running content dispute at Cold fusion. We know you don't resolve content disputes, but this one seems to have resisted all forms of dispute resolution because of underlying behavioral issues.

The heart of the problem is that Pcarbonn has made statements on and off wiki that suggest he is using Wikipedia for promotion or ideological struggle, and other editors have latched on to these statements and are using them to assert COI. This has resulted in a persistent disruption to the editing environment and consequential deterioration in the quality of the article as good faith contributors are driven away from editing.

Prior attempts at dispute resolution are numerous, yet the problems continue. I had suggested to ScienceApologist that the matter could be resolved at arbitration enforcement, but a prior straw poll suggested that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience might not be applicable. Therefore User:SheffieldSteel commenced a thread at Administrators' noticeboard requesting a community topic ban. That thread has regrettably deteriorated into the usual bickering that surrounds this topic. A recent thread on ANI was disrupted by User:IwRnHaA a sock puppet of a banned user. I believe the entire situation bears close scrutiny, including the behavior of all editors.

I do not see a consensus forming within the Community, yet something needs to be done. Here we are, asking for your enlightened guidance. Jehochman ^Talk 19:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC) (alleged at Jehochman ^Talk 04:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)) (formatting and minor additions at 15:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

To Kww, we have at least one administrator as well as a number of good faith editors opposing the topic ban. I do not think it will be helpful to implement a controversial ban via WP:AN. If the Committee wants to pass a motion implementing the topic ban based on their reading of the WP:AN thread, they are welcome to do so. Jehochman ^Talk 22:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may be something to what User:Eluchil404 says below. Excessive rhetoric on either side can cloud the picture, making things more difficult for the Community to resolve. In the best case all parties will remain calm and engage in rational discussions. Jehochman ^Talk 23:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, once certain additional information was pointed out to me, I changed my mind. It is good to change one's position when others present convincing arguments or additional facts. There is a serious problem with this article that needs attention from the Committee. In fact, I did link to the Mediation case, but WJBscribe asked me to remove that link in order to help preserve the privileged nature of mediation. I was busy with other things at the time and asked him to perform the removal for me, which he did. I didn't attempt to "rein in" the sockpuppet because I assumed they were a good faith editor until checkuser proved otherwise. Please reconsider your post. Jehochman ^Talk 03:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SheffieldSteel

There comes a point in any dispute, perhaps somewhere after three months, but surely after a couple of years, beyond which it is no longer reasonable to say "this is a content dispute" and we must instead presume that the reason the dispute hasn't yet been resolved is the conduct of the participants. It is on this basis - and the apparent inability of the community to resolve this issue at any forum up to and including WP:AN - that I urge ArbCom to accept this case and consider the conduct of the users involved. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kww

I'm surprised that this had to come here. The discussion on WP:AN seemed to be forming a consensus to topic ban, with only a few users in opposition. Many of those editors also have a suspiciously strong fondness for cold fusion.

I think the diffs cited by Jehochman are sufficient to justify a topic ban: it shows that Pcarbonn's motivation is not the improvement of Wikipedia, but improvements in the public's perception of cold fusion, using Wikipedia as a means to that end.—Kww(talk) 22:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pcarbonn's statement outlines the problem with his editing. For any fringe topic, the bulk of material published supports it, because the bulk of material is written by people that support it. Obvious hokum like Electronic voice phenomena and homeopathy would get massively positive coverage if his approach to determining the "neutral" point of view were accepted.—Kww(talk) 16:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eluchil404

I would echo most of what Jehochman says above and urge acceptance of this case. There is enough division in the community that ArbCom is needed to reach a clear outcome. I also note that the behaviour of the other parties in this case should also be examined. Even if Pcarbonn is to be banned some of the invective used against him has been excessive, in my opinion. Despite the problems in herent in arbitration, I think that this route is preferable than trying to hash out a solution at WP:AN with the associated high drama. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Durova

Jehochman’s representations are contradictory. On 19 October 2008 he closed the COIN thread, explicitly stating “Not a COI issue.” Yet the opening sentence of his request for arbitration he asserts relevance to the conflict of interest policy. Jehochman claims IwRnHaA disrupted the ANI thread that ran November 8-11, yet that account made only four posts to the thread to Jehochman’s twelve, where Jehochman did not attempt to rein in IwRnHaA. The reason so many noticeboard threads exist is principally in response to Jehochman's repeated objections regarding venue. Of the “prior attempts at dispute resolution”, only one is actual dispute resolution and he fails to link to the case. Here is that link: it was closed over half a year ago with the note “The underlying issues have been marked as resolved.”

This request is a bid for a topic ban upon an editor with a clean block log[3] who has been actively editing a good article for a long time. It is not surprising that in such a situation, one set of editors sees civil POV pushing and another set sees a bid to silence dissent. The normal recourse in such situations is conduct RFC. The community has not determined a sufficient basis for banning and it is unlikely that the Committee would conclude differently at this time.

As Jehochman advised ScienceApologist in one of the linked noticeboard threads, the lack of proactive disclosure does make a negative impression. If Jehochman has changed his mind about COI, why not reopen the COIN thread? One of the core assumptions of our community is that most people will reform if their conduct has been out of hand, and the problem is brought to their attention in a suitable manner. Can we fairly say that this editor has gotten that feedback? Whether or not a ban is actually merited, it is likely that the Committee will decline the proposed ban due to that doubt, and due to the editor's good standing. Durova^Charge! 04:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Striking the full statement in light of Pcarbonn's post, which reads like a veiled threat. Durova^Charge! 02:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by VasileGaburici

Note: Although I have commented on the last AN thread (and only there) that I find the evidence against User:Pcarbonn insufficient for a ban, I'm not endorsing anyone's version of the events, I'm simply pointing out that in my view a serious and complex conflict exits.

I urge the committee to accept this case, and to extend it to consider all parties involved, including User:JzG and User:Seicer. I'm suggesting that JzG be included because he also asked for User:Pcarbonn to be topic banned on the basis of the same alleged COI, triumphalism, and POV pushing [4]. Furthermore JzG was officially a party in the (failed) mediation. Both JzG [5] and ScienceApologist have denounced the outcome of the mediation, and SA has made direct accusations of behavioral misconduct against mediator Seicer (I received the rudest e-mail of my life from that "mediator" who then essentially told me he would ignore me for the rest of the mediation.) Furthermore SA has declared that mediator Seicer "has continued a low-level campaign of harassing editors with science background", and he has stated that he won't accept another mediation. [6] While I cannot ask this committee to second-guess Seicer in his mediator role, I urge the committee to investigate these allegations of improper conduct. The (im?)propriety of the mediation is germane here because User:Pcarbonn has repeatedly used it as an argument supporting his POV.

I think that there is a lot of bad blood and an erosion of trust on the Wiki due this simmering, months-old conflict. For this reason, I do not think that one or more RfCs filed against any party would produce any practical results at this point. The only alternative to arbitration by this committee would be more divisive AN(I) threads.

I agree that mediator Seicer should not be publicly disclosing privileged communication. But the Mediation committee policy also details that Protecting the integrity of mediation does not extend to protecting users who deliberately disrupt and subvert official dispute resolution, and the Mediation Committee will not allow its policies to be abused to protect bad-faith actions. SA alleged that mediator Seicer engaged in harassment, and as the recent SlimVirgin/Lar case has established, the committee may evaluate such evidence privately, and this venue is superior to "public invective".

In response to Verbal: here's a tally (this may be biased, as I've only counted clear !votes in the last AN thread):

• For ban (18): Verbal, SheffieldSteel, Kww, Eldereft, SA, Shell_Kinney, Aunt_Entropy, Jehochman (maked as comment, but supporting ban), OMCV, JoshuaZ, Skinwalker, Alex_Bakharev, Fyslee, Shot_info, Cool_Hand_Luke, Hut_8.5, Sadalmelik, Shoemaker's_Holiday.
• Against (7): ImperfectlyInformed, Kevin Baas, DGG, jossi, Littleolive_oil, Levine2112, and myself.

Statement by Verbal

I full endorse KWWs statement. There was a clear consensus being formed on AN for the topic ban, and the diffs brought up there and above give more than enough evidence to support a topic ban from cold fusion and related pages for 6 months. Verbal chat 09:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading PCarbonn's reply below, and seeing his overly dramatic and self-martyring comparison of wikipedia due-process to the French reign of terror(!), I am further in favour of the block. User Enric Naval sums up the problems with allowing PC to continue editing cold fusion in the style he has declared, and I am fully in agreement with his view. Verbal chat 16:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pcarbonn

We have indeed a conflict of interest, but it's not what some people think. As his user pages says, ScienceApologist is interested in promoting the status quo, while I'm interested in defending progress, and thus changes. As a consequence, he favors evidence that Cold fusion was seen as pathological science in the 1990's, while I favor well-sourced evidence that it is an ongoing scientific controversy to this day. We have both doggedly defended our opinion.

It is common sense that man have interests, and that they take pride in achieveing their goal. If Wikipedia were to exclude such men, who would be left to write it ? How many would be left to pay for it ? If I get banned from Wikipedia, many others would later be. I believe that the ArbComm should avoid that route. What would we gain from it ?

So, how should we go about resolving such conflicts ? Wikipedia offers plenty of dispute resolution mechanisms, and I have accepted them all. Apparently, they are not enough. I therefore support the ArbComm's involvement.

In particular, I would appreciate that the ArbComm address the following issue: How to determine the preponderence of opinion that is the basis of NPOV ? ScienceApologist defends the view that it should be based on the opinion of "most scientists" : it is indeed a good way to maintain the status quo that he wants. I say that it should be based on the preponderence of opinion in the most reliable sources published on the subject. Cold fusion is a case where these 2 principles give a different answer, and give thus a different basis for NPOV. (See here)

I believe that there are many other valid scientific controversies where the opinion of "most scientists" and of the "experts in the field" differ. Some like to discard them as Fringe science, while others, like me, see them as interesting science practiced by a minority of good scientists. So, this case is about the status of good science practiced by a minority of scientists, with a different view from the (silent) majority.

Here is my take on that issue. "Most scientists" cannot be a reliable source on all topics, because they cannot be expected to be knowledgeable in all subjects. Furthemore, they cannot be a reliable source on cold fusion because they don't publish about it. Statements that start with "most scientists" are WP:Weaseled words that are not truly verifiable. All scientific revolutions have started when a few scientists have scientifically analysed an anomaly. I don't see why Wikipedia would not want to echo what they say, while saying at the same time that the view of "most scientists" is different. I totally disagree with ScienceApologist censorship of their work, on the basis that NPOV tell us to represent the view of "most scientists". He is forced to use censorship because, since "most scientists" don't publish their view, he has no basis for adding verifiable material to preserve the balance. He has thus frequently removed extremely well-source statement, such as statements from peer-reviewed journals in the top third of ISI ranking. These statements would be accepted in any other non-controversial article. I'd argue that it may be a pity that critics of a theory do not publish their opinion, such as the professor who is JzG's friend, but it's not wikipedia's place to right that wrong and to give a non-verifiable say to the silent majority. The parity of source should work both ways: if proponent write in the top third of journals, critics should do it too.

One may say that I choose that view because it favors progress. He would be right. What would be the value of knowledge, and of Wikipedia, if it is not to enable progress ?

Pcarbonn (talk) 12:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nota bene: this dispute has a long history. This timeline describes how I see it. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to Enric Naval, I deny that I want to downgrade the conclusion of the DOE report. On the contrary, as my timeline shows, I have always considered the DOE report as very important, and said that it strongly supports the view that the scientific controversy is ongoing. I have consistently insisted that it be quoted properly. ScienceApologist has constantly tried to censor it, or to have it say what "most scientists" think, although it is clearly very different. For example, he has repeatedly resisted the inclusion of the following statements in our article: "the panel was evenly split on whether the evidence of anomalous heat was convincing", "1/3 of the panel was somewhat convinced by the evidence of low energy nuclear reactions". I'll be happy to provide plenty of evidence for that, if asked.

I do give weight to secondary sources, such as review articles published in peer reviewed journals or books published by reputable academic presses, as evidenced here. However, the definition of secondary sources for Cold fusion is also disputed (e.g. here), and I suggest that ArbComm clarifies it. Some editors say that field reviews published by cold fusion experts are not secondary sources, even if published in reputable peer-reviewed journals out of their field, or by academic publisher. Many disagree, as I do.

I'm convinced that what I said above does not violate our 3 core policies, nor this ArbComm's decision. ScienceApologist has contributed significantly to the WP:Fringe guideline. If what I said above is in contradiction with WP:Fringe, I'll wait for ArbComm's decision before deciding whether WP:Fringe needs an update or I need to change my editing. Pcarbonn (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Another note on WP:Fringe: my real life does not give me time to be knowledgeable on other fringe topics. (It does not allow me to be a multi-purpose account either, and I wonder how some others contribute so much, while being consistent with the COI guideline). So, it's hard for me to elaborate on WP:Fringe policies. However, I would think that it should be easy to distinguish fringe theories that don't get published in reputable peer-reviewed journals out of their fields, from those that do. Cold fusion is clearly in the latter category. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In my recent defense on WP:AN (see the end of this section), I asked which real-world Justice would punish me in this case. Let me add one point: which real-world justice would punish me, in a case where many jury members cast their vote before hearing the defense, thus compromising their impartiality. Again, such summary style judgement are indicative of an ochlocracy. May I suggest that the ArbComm issue a ruling to mitigate such behavior in a case involving an individual editor ? Pcarbonn (talk) 05:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to Greg L, I don't have any first hand expertise in cold fusion (CF), in the sense that I have not conducted nor participated in any cold fusion experiment. My interest in it, as I explained in a previous post on the CF talk page, is that I see CF as a way to provide a better world for my children. This interest led me to study the field, and, over time, to have conversations with researchers. When editing wikipedia, I try to keep wikipedia's goals in mind first, and my desire for a better world second. I do see Wikipedia as a way to achieve that secondary goal while fully respecting wikipedia's spirit and policies. Other editors have reminded me when I occasionally strayed away from the wikipedia spirit, and I have always accepted their feedback. Pcarbonn (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Vesal says that the preponderence of CF in reputable sources should be measured within the realm of the 50,000 papers on condensed matter nuclear science. This point should also be addressed by ArbComm : what scope should be considered when evaluating the preponderence of a view. My view is that WP:V and WP:OR are clear. Vesal's statement is a new synthesis ("cold fusion is not preponderent") based on a non-verifiable claim ("50,000 papers don't talk of CF"). WP:V and WP:OR require "sources that directly support the information as it is presented". Field reviews published in reputable sources do meet this requirement, and cold fusion does have such field reviews." Pcarbonn (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you know what SA's proposed WP:MAINSTREAM guideline reminds me ? Of Nineteen Eighty-Four. "Mainstream" is a fuzzy word that does not refer to any verifiable source, i.e. a WP:Weasel word. In newspeak, it refers to the Ministry of Truth. Wikipedia is a powerful telescreen, let's use it wisely. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seicer

After being requested to compile a statement regarding this case, I am declining as I was the mediator for the Cold Fusion through the Mediation Committee, and wish to remain neutral and impartial during the outcome of any events that may transpire from the Requests for Arbitration case. As a reminder, statements made during the Mediation case are privileged and I am not at liberty to disclose any statements or events that occurred during Mediation. seicer | talk | contribs 12:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by sort-of-involved Enric Naval

Regretfully, after reading Pcarbonn's statement, I have to endorse a topic ban for him. This is because:

a) he intends to insert cutting-edge research on the article, in violation of WP:FRINGE.

b) he has been insisting for a long time. Repeating the same argumentation for the Nth time is going beyond reasonable limits

c) he still seems to insist on downgrading the conclusions of governamental DOE review (secondary source) in favor of his interpretation of the results of individual studies (primary source). And seems to continue doing so even after being explained several times that DOE is a more reliable source, (including 3 days ago a TL;DR post that I made explaining the reasoning behind WP:MEDRS[7])

d) every once in a while, socks and SPAs appear on the talk page and disrupt it with similar argumentations about giving more weight to individual studies. Those arguments are rebuffed again and again. It's time to put a stop at this and make clear that WP:OR is not welcome here.

Other venues appear to have failed, and issue has gone from "content dispute" with reasoned new arguments to "omg again the same thing" with the same beating-the-dead-horse arguments from different angles. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response to olive

Everyone has a POV, but, anways, we have to make an effort to use Wikipedias's POV (NPOV). If I make a biased edit, someone can correct it to make it NPOV. The problem with Pcarbonn is that he is not making that effort and that he is not allowing others to correct his POV. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by almost uninvolved DGG

I think this has reched an impasse, and there is no other practical resolution but ArbCom. At the AN some people were very definite about a topic ban being necessary, and other equally strongly objecting; various resolution procedures have been tried to no avail. This is essentially a case of what has sometimes been called polite POV pushing, of trying through proper editing to ensure that a POV is overemphasized (as viewed from one side) or adequately represented (as viewed by the other side). I've commented at various proposals by some of the people involved in this, my concern that charges of this nature can be used to limit not just small fringe views, but legitimate minority views, and is destructive to NPOV. In fact, some have stated their objections to NPOV in favor of what they call SPOV (Scientific Point of View) in cases where there is a scientific consensus. DGG (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:JzG

This is a textbook case of civil POV-pushing, as evidence Pcarbonn's own words cited elsewhere. To come to Wikipedia to win the battle to rewrite an article in terms which better reflects a minority view, in order to correct a "problem" with the real world's perception of a subject, is wrong on several levels. Pcarbonn has admitted that this is what he did, in fact seems proud of it.

My interest in the subject stems from the fact that a good friend of mine was working in one of Fleischmann's labs at the time of the original experiments, took some part in the experiments, and is now a full professor at an English university. His view was that the FA version was an accurate reflection of the state of the field. He expressed some disbelief at the cold fusion activists and their walled garden of journal articles written by them, reviewed by them and published by them in their pet journal. We've had a lot of POV-pushing on this article, from the lenr-canr webmaster and others, but the most successful POV-pusher by far is Pcarbonn because he is polite and patient. And very, very insistent.

Take for example the resistance shown by the cold fusion advocates to the citing of a piece in Physics Today which noted that the field of cold fusion is derided. That is a great source for Wikipedia, being a reflection of the mainstream view on the subject in question - exactly what we are supposed to reflect in the overall tone of the article. Instead we saw advocacy of synthetic counts of the number of peer reviewed articles, with no mention that the vast majority of them were in journals with negligible impact. You cannot draw any conclusion from such counts, because you will not get papers in the major journals along the lines of "Cold fusion still twaddle". On the other hand, the fact that the CF advocates' work appears almost exclusively in their own house journal, and not in the high impact mainstream journals that would undoubtedly show an interest if a completely new nuclear process was demonstrated, well, that speaks volumes.

Fact: cold fusion is regarded by the mainstream as a pariah field, but our article has been rewritten, mainly by Pcarbonn, to represent it as if it is a significant and emergent field. It is not. The major flaw with CF is that there is no accepted mechanism by which it can work; you can duplicate the experiment with varying degrees of success until you are blue in the face, but until you have the basic science which explains how the purported effect works, you will get nowhere. The world of science is like that.

So much for the content background. Now the core problem.

Wikipedia is absolutely at the mercy of missionaries, they have everything to gain from persistence while those who defend the mainstream view generally are not even a fraction as obsessed with any individual subject so are much less likely to spend the hundreds and hundreds of hours necessary to continually rebut fringe advocacy. This article is just one of a very large number which suffer the same issues, often with the same editors - another example would be Remote viewing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Here we have a missionary who has openly declared that he is here to fight for the balance of an article to be skewed away from the mainstream view because, in his opinion, the mainstream is wrong. And that's all we need to know. Verifiability, not truth and no undue weight. If the worlds of physics and chemistry deride cold fusion, then we should not be leading the crusade to get them to change their minds.

I would welcome suggestions from the committee as to how the widespread, growing and serious problem of relentless civil advocacy of fringe POV might be fixed. Guy (Help!) 17:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stephan Schulz

What JzG said. And how he said it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by olive

I reiterate this is a dispute based on content with attempts to attach blame for the content to an editor. Delineation of the issues mentioned is important here; content is disputed, whose fault is that, and how does this connect to NPOV, SPOV, and the Fringe articles. Problems with editing on the Fringe articles is ongoing and a solution to that situation shouldn't be considered here since this Rfarb refers to Pcarbonn, Cold Fusion and not the other fringe articles.

The Cold Fusion article has apparently had GA and FA status while Pcarbonn was editing there. This indicates a level of community acceptance of material in the article. Whether this article jives with the current thought of so-called "mainstream science" is another issue. If the "community" accepted this article by assigning it GA or FA status then the editors, notice I didn't say editor, are not to "blame" for the content. Editors may be responsible for content but acceptance by the community in a sense signs off on the article, and "blame" cannot be assigned.

There seems to be a lot of discussion of Pcarbonn's intentions. We assume a lot of responsibility in assigning intention to someone else. Are there any editors here who have not looked at an article they worked on an felt that the article was well balanced and neutral from his or her own view point, the only true viewpoint any of us have. There is comment about someone editing while being civil, as if this is a crime of some sort rather than adherence to a Wikipedia policy. Was Pcarbonn blocked for edit warring, incivility or other mistakes editors can make in content disputes. Apparently not.

At the most basic level this discussion comes out of differences in ideologies, mainstream science and what that is, and the new frontiers "science" is exploring, and those supporting either view. It would be easy to assign blame here and designate a scapegoat for the ways in which editors attempt to edit in the ways they think are right. There's lots of POV on the Wikipedia articles because everyone has a POV. What does fix the problems in collaboration is tolerance, civility and ongoing patient discussion while respecting other editors. I can't see why an editor should be restricted for working within those guidelines. Is a solution needed for these problem articles? Yes. Will banning an editor for editing within policy create a solution? No. Is this the place to drag in this ongoing discussion on Science/fringe and confusing that with this case on an individual editor? No. My opinion anyway.(olive (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Further comment as response to Enric: Is he edit warring, reverting others' edits to the blocking point, uncivil. There is no record of that. How can he prevent other editors from making those edits,then. Mainstream science editors assume his editing is not neutral. Is it possible he considers the same of them? The editor is acting in compliance. Are all the editors there doing the same? Is it possible that by working within the boundaries of Wikipedia one progresses, and by not doing so one cannot, and so must go to other avenues to get what one thinks is necessary in an article? Is that possible? Most of the discussions here dispute content. Deal with that, and the deep underlying problems that ensue from that dispute. Another thought or two.(olive (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Vesal

First, I want to just retract some of my harsh words towards Pcarbonn. I still believe he is wrong, but I think it is a Good Thing it was taken up here, because banning him is a band-aid solution to a deeper problem. He is after all sticking to the letter of the policy, and has good backing in the guidelines on the reliability of sources. Now, if what he is doing doesn't conform to the general vision most people here have of what a reputable encyclopedia should be like, then the underlying problem should be addressed.

Second, I do admit that Pcarbonn makes some valid points, especially that "most scientists" are often wrong; and physics textbooks may be far too conservative for Wikipedia's needs. However, if we roughly categorize sources from well-established to cutting-edge knowledge:

1. Textbooks
2. Reference work
3. Review articles in high-impact journals
4. Review articles in topic-specific journals
5. Novel results in high-impact journals <--- I count Die Wissenschaftler here!
6. Novel results in topic-specific journals <--- Surface and Coating Technology, etc.

What should Wikipedia ideally aim for?

Third, from what I understand, this entire dispute depends on the interpretation of the following line from WP:DUE: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." Here is why:

• The reliable sources explicitly about Cold Fusion are mostly by proponents, so if we judge reliable sources strictly on cold fusion, then PCarbonn is right. He explicitly uses this interpretation of policy.
• However, the reliable sources on fusion and condense matter physics mostly ignore cold fusion altogether. There are 50,000 papers indexed each year by ISI in the category Applied Physics / Condensed Matter Physics. (Recall that Cold fusion is also known as "condensed matter nuclear science"). Therefore, it seems fair to conclude that cold fusion is little represented in reliable sources on the topic.

So, which interpretation is correct?

This is really all I have to say, so I will not contribute more to this arbitration; but I certainly believe that this dispute raises some interesting fundamental question, and is worth the committees' time.

Statement from Greg L

A few thoughts from the fuel cell world

I’ve skimmed through some of the complaints about Pcarbonn and his perceived conflict of interest. I’d like to pass along some observations here for others to consider. I’ve got a pile of experience in the design of PEM fuel cells. I was employee #2 at a fuel cell startup. I came up with a completely new approach to fuel cell construction that managed the 150-psi forces on the membranes and did so with flimsy plastic (read: low cost) structures. Most of my sixteen patents relate to fuel cells. I’ve since left the fuel cell world and am working on medical technology (something that holds the promise of preventing diabetes). As far as I know though, the fuel cell company I worked for is the only one with a truly successful, commercial product. Now that you know where I’m coming from…

Note that I haven’t ever contributed one iota to any of our fuel cell-related articles. Why? Two reasons: 1) I tend to focus on articles on which I want to learn more (where I haven’t mastered the subject going into it), but (mainly), 2) I utterly dread the notion of being reverted by some I.P. editor who got everything he knows about fuel cells from Popular Mechanics. Why put up with such aggravation? I don’t need it. I just know that if I started doing anything on Fuel cell, I’d find myself continually being challenged over how something I wrote wasn’t cited or constituted WP:OR even though it is silly common knowledge in the fuel cell engineering world. In many cases, the basics of an engineering discipline aren’t written down and are damn hard to cite. Much of what you can cite is horsecrap like “fuel cells will power 25% of our cars by the year 2015” (no they won’t). While working on Kilogram, I contacted a number of Ph.D.s while researching background information (I do my homework). One of them copped a huge WTF to the notion of being expert in something and writing about it on Wikipedia where one doesn’t get credit and could get reverted by imbeciles. That is a common sentiment amongst Ph.D.s.; ergo, Wikipedia doesn’t often get the benefit of those who know the most about many subjects.

I’m sure you can see where I’m going here. I have barely even looked at Fuel cell and don’t ever intend to do so. I have no idea if it’s screwed up or has major gaps or is good or bad. I know next to nothing about Pcarbonn, but it appears he has some expertise in the subject of cold fusion. My suggestion is to cut the guy some slack and fix the most egregious violations of self-promotion. I’d still be tempted to overlook mild self-promotion; it could be that is what is motivating him to put up with so much flack. We really should try to do a better job of dealing with true experts. My only caution in all of this is to try to do a good job too of vetting any supposed “experts”. Greg L (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. Note my last sentence, above. I started thinking of my assumptions going into that post. Pretty much my entire above post was predicated on the presumption that “self promotion” and “conflict of interest” somehow equated with “Pierre is some sort of CF expert who is trumping up his own work.” Perhaps, that might have been too much of a leap of logic. Can anyone fill me in?

  I can see from articles like New Energy Times that Pierre clearly is smack dab in the middle of things in the CF world at some level. But in what capacity? As president of the local chapter of the cold fusion fan club(?), or as a researcher who has had palladium electrodes made for him and has seen 30 extra watts mysteriously cook out of his devices for a couple of days and witnessed queer neutron flux readings that make no sense? Trying to determine what his first-hand technical knowledge is in CF has so far proven elusive for me. I’ve asked him here on his talk page about this very issue. I know that the purpose of this venue is not to settle content disputes. But at this point, I’m trying to get to the bottom of why there is such a divergence between Pierre’s editorial tone (rah rah cold fusion) and that of the others who feel his edits lack a neutral point of view.

  As I stated above, I think we need to afford experts, especially in technical matters, some extra latitude. If Pierre is not a first-hand experimenter in CF, my entire above post is irrelevant and the complexion of this dispute will have changed a great deal from my point of view. Greg L (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S Pierre responded that he has no personal expertise in cold fusion. It appears he is, perhaps, and advanced fan of CF and reads what he can of the available literature. It strikes me that Pierre should abide by the consensus view of what the most reliable sources are saying on the technical issues. I’ve essentially advised him (here) as much. Please consider my initial post, above, when a more appropriate situation arrises. Greg L (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

I do not recall having edited cold fusion or having any prior interaction with User:Pcarbonn. In that narrow sense I am uninvolved. But I do have a broader feeling of involvement in that I am deeply concerned about the scientific credibility of Wikipedia. In that regard I would like to point to a principle that appeared in a previous Arbitration Committee decision:

Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.

The most important question here is, Will that principle continue to apply to Wikipedia, or will we take an approach that is more sympathetic toward views that are most definitely not in line with respected scientific thought out of a concern for "fairness" toward individual editors? The narrower questions of the behavior of User:Pcarbonn or other specific editors are secondary. Editors come and go.

Statement by ScienceApologist

I hate arbitration. The last case in which I was involved was so opaque in its process as to resemble something between a witch-hunt and a parlor game. The resolutions were either vague, uninspired, or so lacking in edification as to exacerbate the problem rather than resolve it. Yet the cases in which I have been involved have nevertheless been quoted and dissected over years as though the conclusions were some sort of sacred text sent from on-high to say exactly how Wikipedia should run. Laughable, considering the utter incompetence of many of the people responsible for the "decisions". I admit up front that some arbitrators are intelligent, thoughtful, and decent, but I find the court of arbiters to be stacked with quite a few hacks. The arbitration process itself is unweildy and has no basis in rational thought (does Workshop ever really accomplish anything?). There is no consistent procedural law, no due process, no real standard of evidence (beyond the peurile "diff" request), no consistency in the evaluation of testimony, no accountability, no recourse to appeal, etc, etc, etc. I don't trust arbitration.

Nevertheless, I am a named party in this case, and so should at least try to explain where I'm coming from.

Perhaps most succinctly, interested parties can look at a new proposal I started: WP:MAINSTREAM. This explains my motivations almost in their entirety.

There exist Wikipedians who vehemently disagree with my aims. I can provide a list, but shall refrain in the interests of deferring to community tradition. I come into conflict with the users on this list on a fairly regular basis. I am often mystified as to what justification there is to keep such users on board. I'm all in favor of having people at Wikipedia who have a difference of opinion. Some of them learn to deal well with the fact that their opinions are only of marginal status and do not protest when other editors work to appropriately frame their opinions in such a way... but such users are coming harder and harder to find.

Instead, at Wikipedia, most minority-opinion holders exploit the fact that Wikipedia has never forcefully endorsed any content standards, even its own. Should we let people with minority opinions actively disrupt the articles to the point of driving away good contributors who are not passionately aligned to a minority opinion? Should we encourage them to create an environment so caustic that getting outside expert help is nearly impossible? Since I first became involved with Wikipedia, the answer has gone from being a de facto "yes" to almost a de jure "yes". More than that, the community has become downright toxic for editors dedicated to the standards of high-quality research -- generally to the point of driving away editors who are passionately devoted to the principles and practices that our content guideline and policy pages say are most in-line with best editorial practices.

Instead of fostering an environment where good research is rewarded and poor scholarship is punished, Wikipedia relies on a set of vague, messageboard-centric "behavioral" guidelines to police. Concepts like civility are upheld as "policy" in the spite of the known fact that the civility-standards are culturally relative. More than this, the monolithic behavioral structure contradicts the pluralism that Wikipedia claims to endorse. Why is that the Wikipedia community lack diversity? In part it is because Wikipedia is tolerant of behaviors that traditional internet users endorse while being intolerant of behavior standards that are different.

This situation is exacerbated by the fact that Wikipedia has become a community not of expert researchers or at least people dedicated to the principle of WP:MAINSTREAM, but rather a community of anti-social internet denizens who alternatively enjoy the mind trip that is "an encyclopedia anyone -- even I -- can edit" or are hoping to play games to achieve fake positions of power like "administrator" or "bureaucrat" or "arbitrator". It's petty, silly, and I hate it.

The ONLY reason I continue is because Wikipedia is the best thing going at the moment which is seen by the fact that students use it. I feel it important that students are not turning to a resource that skews presentation of facts, opinions, etc in a way that defies WP:MAINSTREAM. I don't care if Wikipedia survives or not, and usually hope that it fails a miserable death and gets buried in the sands of time because of the problems I outline above.

I will be on wikibreak for much of this arbitration because these things are such time sinks. I would prefer to talk directly to arbitrators about my position through e-mails, phone calls, etc. and would not mind if we published some of these conversations in the evidence pages. I don't have time to deal with all the potential drama that will accompany this case. There are enough people who take delight in stalking me from place to place that I think it better to not be directly involved in the evidence, workshop, or discussion pages of this arbitration.

ScienceApologist (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved JodyB

I am pleased to see that the committee will accept this case. However I encourage you to look far beyond the present players here and help the community develop a coherent, workable manner to deal with scientific topics. As we all know, science is a dynamic field in which change is the only true constant. Theories arise, are inspected and then accepted or rejected only to be re-considered a few months or years later. The difficulty is how to treat those theories as they wax and wane. Today's fringe theory may be tomorrow's accepted fact. It is simply impossible to know what is really junk and what is true beyond an immediate snapshot of the current thinking. The committee needs to gives us some guidance on how to thread the needle so these user conflicts no longer boil over. We cannot become a repository of "what-if's" and "maybe's" nor can we ignore the advance of science which can be so rapid. JodyB _talk 14:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

• Information, for parties to the case: this case has met the minimum vote count requisite for acceptance (four net votes supporting acceptance), and will therefore be opened tomorrow evening (~6pm 14 November 2008). Clerk Tznkai has indicated he will be handling this case. AGK 21:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that there are now accept votes from a majority of the entire committee, this case can be opened as soon as the Clerk is available, without waiting the balance of the 24 hours. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Accept to consider all aspects of the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. This needs looking into carefully. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept for close review of all aspects of the situation. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept to consider all behaviour related to this dispute. --bainer (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. --Deskana (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept to look at all aspects. Dispute of this kind arise fairly often; let's see if we can resolve this in a way that helps other similar disputes. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:10, 14 November 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 to vacate Matthew Hoffman case

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

• Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Arbcom

I've also notified a couple people who were tangentally involved, they can decide if they wish to add their names. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

A few months ago, Newyorkbrad encouraged me to open a new request related to the core of this case, but the wounds were too raw, and I was unable to set out my evidence calmly at that time, so delayed.

I ask that we reopen the matter now.

In this case, the arbcom, while I was suffering from severe depression, illness, and on the verge of nervous breakdown from the monetary situation at the time - I was literally faced with being homeless - opened a case with no prior dispute resolution - I had never had so much as an RfC on me - and chose me to be a test case. In the end, combined with the other events, this forced me to drop out of university. I left Wikipedia over it, and it was only the active, constant encouragement of User:Newyorkbrad, User:Durova and a few others that brought me back after several months.

A sitting arbitrator launched a campaign of harrassment throughout the case pages, unchecked by the other arbitrators. Here are some samples. This all took place over a single bad block, made two months before the Arbcom case was opened.

In the initial lead in to the case, I had offered to let Charles Matthews take over the block, in e-mail, because there was no way that I could review it competently at that point in time. He said that was "not good enough", so I put it up on ANI.

Charles Matthews specifically says at one point that my refusal to simply to defer to his judgement is why he opened this case and pushed so hard for my desysopping:

Bear in mind, please, my approach. I intended to get Vanished user to correct this mistake, voluntarily, in such a way as could appear a personal realisation that something had not been right, something had been excessive. In such a way that no review process had been needed. An admin had reconsidered an indef block, had read the log - "gosh, that was too strong - a month is enough - didn't mean to put it that way". Unblocks, leaves a Talk page note to MH. Vanished user and I would have had a little secret. End of story: MH might have left the site, but the matter would have ended in no fanfare. Why do we have a test case? For precisely this reason: the indef block was made in such a way as to obstruct this entirely humane and non-accusatory private review, discussed as between colleagues. Now, I would treat the next bad block just the same way: private email; talk page note, "did you have a mail from me?", no topic mentioned; another private mail, saying more clearly waht the issue is; another private mail asking for attention to the matter; a further mail saying you really ought to give this some attention, and, no, we should talk before you take this to any forum. Tell me, please, whether I'm not acting in the interests of everyone? As opposed to - I start an AN/I thread saying "Vanished user blocked badly here, and here's my case", and we get an adversarial discussion. Charles Matthews 21:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[N.B. I used to edit under my real name. I will be censoring it wherever it appears, and would ask that if anyone mentions it that it be immediately deleted]

As he did not get my consent immediately (though I did unblock in the end), Charles Matthews then launched a campaign of harassment against me, using the power of the Arbitration committee to harass without fear of rebuttal. A complete read through of the case pages would be necessary to see this in full, so I'll just give a couple typical comments by Charles.

• Really, I'm upset now. This is just crap we are listening to about how the admin bit makes you a demigod, and it is death to become an ordinary mortal once more. I can't think legalistically about all this. I came here to Wikipedia to write articles, not to deal with moral pygmies. Too right I can't AGF of the AN/I shower. Charles Matthews 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) (and that in response to an appeal by Carcharoth that he calm down!)[reply]

• No doubt you do object. I have highlighted quite a number of misleading statements you have made. You're hardly coming across the truthful, conscientious, responsive type. You just pass the buck and excuse yourself, endlessly. "Harsh" is interesting - very interesting indeed; but you will have due process, and a chance to defend yourself. (You indefinitely banned a user by saying "good point" to a load of old rubbish.) And User:Jehochman has it wrong. Prevention of further misuse of admin powers is the idea, rather than punishment. Charles Matthews 19:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

His harassment was not devoted to me, he also referred to other editors in the same over-the top terms:

• At best User:Moreschi regards policy as an inconvenience for admins. And User:Jehochman here is a meddling hypocrite, at best.

To quote MastCell's response to the last:

“

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Workshop#Charles_Matthews_has_failed_to_assume_good_faith Since this case seems to be focusing an unusually intense magnifying glass on the minor failings of everyone even peripherally involved (see Chaser above), it seems fair to note that describing an established, good-faith editor as a "meddling hypocrite, at best" is remarkably poor conduct for anyone involved in an arbitration, much less an sitting Arbitrator. Unless that makes me a meddling hypocrite as well. MastCell Talk 18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) ... and really. Describing someone as a "busybody" and a "meddling hypocrite" for voicing an opinion on a block at WP:AN/I? What sort of message are we aiming for here? MastCell Talk 18:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]

”

However, Charles did not act alone, he was aided and abbetted by the other arbitrators, who actively defended his right to harrass me:

• "Let's try and leave Charles Matthews out of this. He's recused. The case isn't about him, at least not to me." - Uninvited Company, 20 December.

• "You've missed UC's point, I think. The issue at hand is what to do about Vanished user, not what to do about Charles. And, as an aside, I can't imagine any reasonable editor thinking that Charles needs anything done about him. Paul August ☎ 18:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)"

Furthermore, the arbitrators were clearly not interested in anything I had to say in my defense: The case opened on 17:40, 2 December 2007 [8]. Within 13 hours of this, and before I had had the chance to provide a single word of evidence in my defense, Uninvited Company set out proposed decisions saying my statements were not borne out by the facts, to sanction Chaser for not having unblocked Matthew Hoffman, and to suggest I be desysopped.

The problems with this case have been pointed out for several months, but the Arbcom have refeused to deal with it, even to simply remove the harrassing comments by Charles Matthews.

A proposal I made during the case that I be desysopped immediately, in exchange for the case stopping, because of the health and RL problems being severely aggravated by having this case going on as well, was rejected by the Arbcoim in favour of dragging it out, coninuing the case, then opening an RFC. However, in July, the personal details I had volunteered in an attempt to get them to agree to my proposal were thrown back in my face:

"Since the full circumstances of the de-sysopped user were disclosed to the AC in confidence, the only appropriate way for this user to regain the tools is to convince the AC – the only group of users with full knowledge of the situation – that the circumstances have changed such that we have confidence in his ability to handle adminship without problems." - Morven, on WP:RFAR, 23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC), seconded by Kirill.

The arbcom have very consciously put me in a situation where only a full discussion of my private problems will prevent them from using them to say that the community is unable to comment on my situation, and that they should have the sole right to discuss what should be done with me. I do not trust myself to comment on their behaviour regarding that matter. Suffice to say that when I DID make a disclosure of some of the health problems of that time, e-mails I received from them afterwards criticised me for not being detailed enough, because I had still wished to maintain some sense of privacy.

Other users have agreed that there are problems with this case:

“

At this juncture I wish to remind the Committee it has been my opinion for many months that the Matthew Hoffman case was the worst-handled arbitration I have ever seen, and rather than remedy any of its numerous errors the Committee appears intent upon compounding them. Hollow apologies mean little; I would like to see for starters Charles Matthews withdraw the repeated personal attacks he posted to the case pages. Ideally you ought to be vacating this case because it was requested in a non-emergency situation with no prior attempt at dispute resolution--thus outside your mandate. Virtually the only other recent case that closed with a prohibition on RFA was the Alkivar case; the off-wiki evidence regarding Alkivar was entirely or almost entirely my own submission and I assembled it from public records. I have been never been under any pledge of confidentiality regarding that material. Until now I have chosen to handle it with discretion because of its sensitive nature; that does not oblige me to remain silent. DurovaCharge! 23:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

”

Likewise Raymond arrit et al, Filll, and numerous others, see the last third of the Proposed decision talk page.

I do not care about getting my adminship back, and I accept that the block was incorrect. However, for my own mental health, I want to put this behind me. Likewise, the campaign of harassment is a blight on the arbcom, and I ask the arbcom to vacate it, in full. As it stands, this case remaining is a statement that, if you upset an Arbitrator, the Arbcom reserves the right to open a "test case" against you with mno proevious dispute resolution, and allow the arbitrator to harass you off the site.

Furthermore, the Arbcom's self-regulation is clearly not working. A basic principle needs to be put in place that all Arbcom decisions can be appealed by the community.

For obvious reasons, I will be crossposting to WP:AN, as I'm afraid that for some reason, I don't really trust the arbcom to judge this case fairly.

Thank you,

User:Shoemaker's Holiday, a.k.a. Vanished user. 14:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If the committee would like, I can send them copies of some of the e-mails I got from Charles, or provide other evidence.

Response to Tznkai:

I am requesting the entire case be declared a miscarriage of justice, or, in less inflammatory language, a mistake. That doesn't mean the actions would necessarily be reversed, e.g. me getting sysop back, but the pages should be blanked or something, and the decisions declared no longer part of Arbcom case law. At this point, any other action validates the three-month harassment I went through as part of this case. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Kirril: Just blank all the pages and leave a note saying it's been withdrawn. That, or something similar, would be sufficient. There's some very nasty stuff on there. I am sorry about this, and I had really hoped we could have dealt with this less publicly, but, well, now that it has been, it's hard to see any other path forwards... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sam

In this case, the findings of an arbcom-initiated RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vanished user were overturned to make a provisional desysop. I am not asking for adminship back and am fully aware that under the current RfA culture I probably never will. What I am asking is for the committee to accept that keeping up an attack piece, where a sitting arbitrator calls people "moral midgets", "dogs", and worse, and in which they harassed a user into a complete breakdown, and then in July unethically used confidential information about that user's health to continue their harassment is something they should not be doing.

What, precisely, in the current decision is so important that it must remain a year afterwards, and how does it justify the gross personal attacks, harassment, and other such things? The only thing that would change by this case being vacated, is that, if I triedd to run an RfA - which I would of course, have no chance of passing, the Arbcom, out of concern for my mental health, would not be able to villify and continue their harassment, by pretending to know anything about my current state of mental health, now that I am not facing being homeless and starving to death, because they knew what my mental health was like when both those things were true. I will urther add that the committee ignored all this information about my health during the case, but only gave any sign they had any knowledge of it at the point they used it to attack me.

The Arbcom has violated my privacy, been part of a harassment campaign against me, and, in July, insisted that I must make a public statement of my private medical details or they would continue holding power over me forever. Show some basic ethics, and stop trying to justify the harassment. The Arbcom has violated basic confidentiality by snidely revealing my health details in July in such a way to make things sound even worse, forcing me to reveal them. Please stop compounding your offenses and let's make a full break with the past, so we can all move on. The longer the Arbcom continues to defend their past bad actions, the more these actions begin to look less like mistakes, and more like intent. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, I am willing to have Newyorkbrad or FT2 as a mentor if that will help ease the committee's misgivings about making the basic ethical decision.

Second response to Sam

Very well, let's put it aside. You have evidently not looked at the remedies in the case, or it would have been clear that there is very, very little that would be overturned The only restriction that came out of that case was my desysop, (which would not change) and the right to regain the sysop after 6 months by appeal to the committee, with a probation to follow. FT2's commentary makes it clear that this was intended to protect me, in order to assure that I can get adminship back again.

The actual change in consequences is only to remove a proposal that was intended to make sure I could get Adminship back, which I do not want because it involves the Arbcom, and, after what has happened to me in regards to the Arbcom... Well, let's end this statement here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by involved party Jehochman

This case was handled badly. I think it would be a very good to erase it completely, on grounds of procedural unfairness. As there is no request to restore adminship, I see that the only action required is for ArbCom to acknowledge this open secret. Jehochman ^Talk 14:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved party Barberio

The manner in which this case was accepted is at best inappropriate opening of a case without allowing it to go through normal channels of having a block overturned. At worst, it appears to be an attempt to game the system by a sitting arbitration member pushing for a speedy resolution in his favour without giving a chance for rebuttal or defence.

I'm also unsettled by the use of 'secret reasons' for the desysop and block on re-admitance. Nor does the remedy sit well with the committee's actions towards more 'establishment figure' administrators who have had similar 'isolated bad decisions'.

In my eyes, the case wasn't taken on correctly, and not enough time was given for a defence. So this case was not legitimate, and none of it's findings or remedies should be active. It should be erased and apologised for.--Barberio (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sam Blacketer

With all due respect, the Arbitration process is a quasi-legal process, and claiming it isn't makes you appear to deny the reality of how your own committee works, much in the same way people claim there is no bureaucracy in Wikipedia. This is not unusual, quasi-legal processes exist in many associations, such as 'courts' that rule on FIA motor sports rule infractions. You need to recognise that this is a quasi-legal process, and act appropriately.

So since it is a quasi-legal process, you need to make sure your actions don't prejudice someone's case, you need to be as clear and open as you can be, and you need to apply suitable fairness.

You are explicitly not the fire-fighting team tasked with making quick emergency actions. You are supposed to act deliberatively, and urgent injunctions should be injunctions not rushed rulings. If you do not know the difference between an injunction and a ruling then you probably shouldn't be ruling on cases.

It is well within your power to make a temporary injunctions, and then investigate a case deliberatively. Failure to do so puts the legitimacy of the rulings at risk. --Barberio (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it is my opinion that the current ArbCom claim they do not set precedent, while acting like the do. This appears to be a misunderstanding of what the word precedent means... If you have used the same 'principles' from one case, to another, to another, that is use of precedent. This is standard practice by the ArbCom.

Again, denying you use precedents when you clearly do signals a misunderstanding of your own role.

Combined with the growing attempts to create policy, and hang 'resolutions' such as Motion of clarification in the Tobias Conradi case up as binding rulings, is troubling. --Barberio (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Durova

This request was opened overnight without my knowledge, and I read it on my first cup of coffee. In the interests of avoiding another arbitration, I urge the Committee to consider this motion. In addition to other objections, I have reason to believe the case was initiated upon misleading representations. Durova^Charge! 15:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where a user is being disruptive...the key issue is the disruption... Sam, Shoemaker's Holiday was an administrator in good standing until this out of process case opened against him. He is now an administrator in good standing at Wikimedia Commons. He has been instrumental to getting Wikipedia's featured sound program off the ground, is doing stellar work for the new 'song of the day' main page section on Wikisource, and is in good standing in all other WMF projects where he participates. There has never been any formal dispute resolution action against him, except related to this case. Shoemaker's Holiday has contributed over five dozen featured content items across multiple projects. What more must a man do to demonstrate he is not disruptive, once a bad arbitration case labels him as such?

The case was opened based upon a single month-old block which he had long since put up for noticeboard review, while he was offering to submit it for a second review. He answered all other relevant concerns to the satisfaction of community consensus, during the RFC for which the arbitration was suspended. Yet the arbitrators never substantially changed the proposed decision that had been posted in the first twelve hours of the case, before he had any chance to defend himself. Voting proceeded despite his requests for time to study for university final exams, and the time it took away hurt his grades. I fail to see what purpose is served by retaining this case, other than as a showcase example for critics of ArbCom to demonstrate the Committee's inability to correct its errors or rein in its members, when they level personal attacks. Durova^Charge! 01:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, I agree that Wikipedia arbitration does not observe the precedents of case law. So far as I know, no prior case has been vacated because there has never been so much cause to do so as here. Durova^Charge! 04:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Martinphi

I seriously question whether he stayed away from Wikipedia for several months. My memory is that he was logging into the admin IRC network under his real name immediately after his case closed. Yes, Shoemaker appeared 18 February 2008 [9], while the case was closed 13 February 2008 [10]. Yet, Shoemaker states above "I left Wikipedia over it, and it was only the active, constant encouragement of User:Newyorkbrad, User:Durova and a few others that brought me back after several months." Whether or not he believes this to be true, I cannot say. If he believes it, he's in no condition to be an admin again. If he doesn't, he's in no condition to be an admin again.

I have been the victim of his continued harassment since I took part in his ArbCom and RfC. If any action would give him back his admin tools, then I strenuously object, as he has continued to be an abusive editor since his desysopping. He already tried, by the regular means, to get his tools back at an RfA. He lost. He has lost the trust of the community. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 20:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My memory is also that while the ArbCom did not adhere to strict protocol in the case, it nevertheless went out of its way to ensure a full and just hearing of the case. It actually suspended the case pending an RfC. I have absolutely no doubt that if the ArbCom had seen anything in the RfC which indicated that Vanished user should keep his admin buttons, the ArbCom would have revised the case. Indeed, I am fully convinced that there were things which Vanished user could have done to keep his buttons: he could simply have said he was wrong and wouldn't do it again. He didn't. I told him how to keep his buttons, and he didn't do it. I believe the ArbCom was open to being convinced that their initial judgment was wrong, and the RfC failed to convince them. Certainly, Vanished user had many friends, who essentially said "he fights trolls, so excuse him." But that's not an excuse, and the ArbCom knew it. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 21:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved party Verbal

I have only recently become aware of this, and fully endorse Jehochman's view: it would be very good to erase it completely. This was bad procedure and sets bad precedent. It should never have happened. Verbal chat 21:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Krill: I think blanked and vacated would be the best option here. Verbal chat 09:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Kirill by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

A case was vacated earlier this year, though I'd prefer slightly different wording. If it is to be vacated, perhaps the Committee can vote on a motion that will replace (blank) what's on the case pages: "The Committee declares that the decision viewable in the history is vacated and not in effect. The history of the case pages are preserved for transparency." The Committee may need to issue a further report, or further statements that can hopefully help heal the wounds of those involved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it would involve removing the case from the archives. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm still reviewing this request, but meanwhile a question.) What case was vacated earlier this year? Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, I think he is referring to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin. MBisanz ^talk 13:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's the one - granted, the circumstances were of course somewhat different in that case, I bring it up as an example of how one has been vacated in the very recent past. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

• Reformatted to include clerk and arbitrator sections.--Tznkai (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question to Shoemaker's Holiday: are you requesting that the judgment be vacated?--Tznkai (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Moved comments, also reformatted crossposted AN thread, added links. Please see Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Appeal of Matthew Hoffman for additional comments as they come.--Tznkai (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator comments

• I'm open to doing something constructive here in principle; but I'm not quite sure precisely how that might be framed. Arbitration cases are explicitly not binding precedent (and not really even advisory precedent); so the "case law" analogy doesn't really work. We don't, therefore, have any established method for vacating a case, per se—overturning it, yes, but not vacating it. What would you like to see in practical terms? A blanking of the case pages? A motion naming the case as being "vacated"? Or something else? Kirill ^(prof) 01:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Commenting in general, I think that there is here too great an assumption that arbitration on wikipedia works in a quasi-legal fashion with notions of fairness to the parties applied as they would be in a criminal law case in an adversarial court system. That is not how it works. The concept of fairness applies primarily to the project as a whole. Where a user is being disruptive for matters outside their control, then arbitrators must still act to restrict them to prevent disruption even if doing so appears to be unfair or harsh on the user. To express it another way, the key issue is the disruption and not what lies behind it. In this immediate case the active members of the committee at the time (I was not participating, having only just been appointed) have apologised for the way the case was handled, but not for the decision.

Where that does come in is when we assess whether to remove restrictions. If a user has been disruptive because of some definite cause, and that cause no longer applies, then we ought to remove any restrictions placed on them because they are no longer needed. In this case I see a great deal of argument about whether the original case was decided appropriately but I see precious little to inform me about what positive actions are requested, and how they would benefit Wikipedia. I would like to see this point argued before I go to vote. I endorse everything Kirill says above about the uselessness of 'precedent'; the committee refuses to be bound by precedent so in effect it does not exist as such. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Shoemaker's Holiday: I'm afraid that yet again a request for information about how to benefit the project going forward has been met with information about how decisions in the past were wrong. The most that I think can be done is to courtesy blank the Matthew Hoffman case, and I'm willing to support that, but formally 'vacating' it would be a meaningless act. I am at a loss to know how you interpret Morven's comments as an invitation to disclose confidential information to the community: they are instead plainly a statement that any application for your resysopping should go to the committee in order to preserve confidentiality. As you are not at present applying for resysop the issue does not arise anyway. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What remedy do you seek? I doubt the Committee would consider revisiting the outcomes, given the facts as they existed then and now. Blanking would achieve little, given that your account was already renamed, the case of course existing under the username of the user you blocked. If people are in a mood to be revisiting things, then let's revisit the discussion of problems in our admin culture that was the substratum to the case, which has not proceeded in all this time. --bainer (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Clarification on arbitration restrictions with respect to ArbCom election

How do my arbitration restrictions apply with regard to the current ArbCom election? Specifically, I am barred from communicating with and even acknowledging the existence of one of the candidates. Will the ArbCom allow me to submit questions to that candidate as part of the process? Furthermore, will I be allowed to take part in the vote on his candidacy? This is a request for clarification, not an appeal. Everyking (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to stress, going back to the crux of the entire case in 2005, that the right to ask questions or vote is something I am happy to sacrifice—provided the same restriction applies to Phil Sandifer. The crux of the case was that Phil wanted to preserve his right to criticize me while depriving me of my right to criticize him; the reason our pre-arbitration agreement fell through was because he chose to speak critically about me while I had already agreed to refrain from speaking critically about him. All I have ever asked with regard to Phil Sandifer is that the ArbCom treat us equally and apply either mutual restrictions or no restrictions; currently, restrictions apply only to me, treating me as a stalker and harasser while making Phil appear to be a victim, which is a smear on my reputation—and that's the central reason why I have objected so frequently and vigorously to these sanctions over the last three years. So in effect what I am asking in this particular matter is that the ArbCom either grant me the right to question and vote or formally withdraw Phil Sandifer's right to question and vote in the event that I were to run for ArbCom (which I am not planning to do this year).

Another situation also comes to mind: AfDs. On several occasions, Phil has nominated articles for deletion when I felt they should be kept, but because historically the ruling has always been interpreted contrary to my interests, I was afraid to actually register my opinions in the AfDs. Will the ArbCom on this occasion clarify whether the ruling should apply to AfDs? Mind you, the same situation as above applies here: I am happy to sacrifice this right if the same restriction is applied to Phil. Everyking (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the comments from the arbitrators so far, I gather that there is a strong consensus in favor of letting me vote and a somewhat weaker consensus in favor of letting me ask questions. I doubt that I will ask Phil any questions, but if I do I will be careful to do so in as uncontroversial a manner as possible. Would it now be possible for the arbitrators to also comment on the issue of AfDs, as I mentioned above? Everyking (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Jehochman

This request is about allowing me the opportunity to participate in the election on an equal basis. I have no particular question in mind and I don't know if I would make use of the opportunity to ask a question. I would certainly vote, though, if that was allowed. Everyking (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jehochman

I am unfamiliar with the details of this case. In general it would be a step towards civility if editors did not view these elections as an opportunity for target practice with their favorite throwing axe. No, conflicts should be sorted via dispute resolution. An oppose vote should be allowed, even if the editors have a history or if there is an injunction prohibiting interaction. However, asking loaded questions or placing an excessive volume of criticism on the candidate's discussion page might be disruptive. This standard should also be considered for our requests for adminship process. Jehochman ^Talk 00:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Scott MacDonald

I'm not really getting this. Sure, Everyking should be able to record his inevitable "oppose" to Phil's candidature. But what on earth can be his pressing need to ask an election question? If he's restricted from interaction, then he shouldn't interact. Let's face it, it isn't as if candidates are going to be so short of questions that Everyking is going to have a pressing need to interrogate. Pragmatically, his question is unlikely to make any difference to this election at all. (And, on the odd chance, his question is uniquely profound, he can phone a friend to ask.)

Frankly, this looks like an opportunity to wikilayer in a way that looks on paper justified, but in truth is drama for no return. When people are put under sanctions, then there is a cost - thankfully, the cost here is a "right" that Everyking neither needs, nor the exercise of which would be in least beneficial to the project. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ultraexactzz

In theory, objectionable questions can be removed if consensus deems them offensive or unacceptable in some fashion. I have no particular preference or request for the committee in favor or against permitting Everyking's participation, but I would note that a process exists for removing problem questions. Similar rules exist for voting, where votes with personal attacks or other shenanigans can be truncated or removed entirely. Looking from a process standpoint, then, there is little to fear from a user posting objectionable questions or votes, as both would swiftly be removed.

Scott MacDonald raises an interesting point, as the sanction - as currently worded - might preclude even a vote in the election, such vote being construed as a "comment about..." which is prohibited. Everyking is an eligible voter - being under Arbcom sanction does not itself disqualify him or anyone - so I might recommend that the committee either explicitly permit him to cast a vote, either normally or without further comment, or alternatively, permit him to cast a proxy ballot in some fashion yet to be determined. Either way, the committee's decision clearly did not contemplate a situation like this, so a clarification is definitely in order. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

• Phil Sandifer notified.--Tznkai (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments moved to appropriate sections.--Tznkai (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Section heading now links to relevant case.--Tznkai (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator comments

• I do not think the existing restrictions can reasonably be construed as forbidding Everyking from posing general questions to, or voting for or against, the candidate in question. Tentatively and subject to further input, although the literal interpretation is more debatable, I would also oppose interpreting the restrictions so as to bar Everyking from posing individualized questions to the candidate, although any questions focusing on the events of several years ago that led to the restrictions (which events I have not studied in detail and have no comment on) should be avoided. Before a consensus is reached here, however, a Clerk should kindly provide Phil Sandifer with notice of this thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I broadly agree with NYB here. The matter of individual questions is, admittedly, somewhat more vague than one of general questions (which, in the current structure, are posted to a central page and therefore don't constitute interaction in any case) or voting; but I am inclined to let you ask questions freely, so long as they don't cross the line and become harassment of a candidate—which should already be covered by standard conduct policies. Kirill ^(prof) 00:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with the above; as long as Everyking is asking reasonable questions in a calm way, he ought not to be prevented. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Many users are aware there has been historical "bad blod" between these two, so any questions asked will surely be reviewed with that knowledge. If the questions are fair and good ones, then I would not wish Everyking to be deprived of sufferage to ask them. Whoever is appointed he will have to live with it. Because of the history though, a pointy or "biased" style of questioning or vote comment, or a question that was not asked in a fair and balanced way, might get seen negatively, and may result in a decision that it's best to separate them again (or at least have the wording of his questions checked before posting).

  So on principle, I would not interpret the existing decision to prevent Everyking asking reasonably useful questions to Phil Sandifer as a candidate, and I would not interpret them to prevent him voting. I would not intercede if he happened to state fairly, "I do not feel confident in you" or explained any concerns in a balanced manner, for example. But if the questions or vote did cause concern, or became a rehash of past history cases, then I would look for Everyking to be responsive to others, and if necessary, for intervention or "sanitization", to ensure it isn't misused. Bottom line is, yes, he has the right to ask sensible and fair questions and to cast a vote of his opinion. Just not a right to misuse or "platform" in doing so. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Newyorkbrad. General questions and voting by you on all candidates would never have raised on eyebrow by anyone. Since Phil Sandifer chose to run for a position where listening to heavy criticism by users is the rule rather than the exception, his ability to answer a few fairly worded question should not be a problem. If the questions cross the line to harassment then our usual user conduct standards as well as the sanction can be applied by the community. Unsolicited advice (so feel free to ignore): Everyking, I encourage you to use your suffrage as a way to impress the Community with your ability to participate in a way that adds good value to important Community matters. I see this as an excellent opportunity for you to change some minds about your ability to review situations and make appropriate insightful comments about a matter. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Motion to amend Bharatveer case

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

• Toddst1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (currently blocked but notified)

Statement by Toddst1

Bharatveer (talk · contribs) has a long history of disruption of Wikipedia, particularly on India-related articles. Before and as the subject of remedies and restrictions from the previous RFAR, he or she has been blocked numerous times for 3RR violations, parole violations and most recently by me for incivility and disruptive editing, bringing the number of blocks to a total of 10. 4 of these blocks occurred after the previous RFAR. The restrictions and remedies meted out in previous RFAR: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Bharatveer#Remedies expired 3 weeks ago on 21 October 2008.

Since the subsequent blocks are the result of very similar issues to the previous RFAR, (reverting in violation of restriction, 3RR, incivility) and it is clear that this problematic editor has not changed his or her problematic pattern of editing, I am asking that the duration of the previous remedies and restrictions be extended for at least another year, and possibly tightened at the committee’s discretion.

Response to bainer's question: I couldn't call my involvement a content dispute:

• I had no known involvement with Bharatveer until yesterday when I started investigating this AIV report about the editor.
• While the report did not seem to warrant a block on its own, I did see editing that concerned me in this AFD nomination for a well-sourced article and much more so at Binayak Sen and issued this 3RR warning.
• I looked further and found a new unrelated edit that removed sourced, well placed, and on topic content . Since the edit didn't look constructive at all to me, I reverted (this is the edit that bainer called "content dispute") and left what I considered a final warning. (At this point there still was an outstanding AIV report for vandalism)
• I blocked the Bharatveer after this accusation.
• Just to be sure, I posted this thread on ANI asking for a full review of my block and its length.
• After the block and ANI post, I tried to explain further to Bharatveer why that reversion of mine was done here. If you don't take the chronology and context into account, I suppose it might appear to be a content dispute.

I hope this helps.Toddst1 (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I welcome a review of my actions here (as I did at ANI), I ask that the arbs review the statement by Dseer from the original case as I think it is applicable and appropriate here - specifically the part about dealing with other editors. (I haven't observed any bigotry) Toddst1 (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pectore

While Bharatveer has some major editing issues (I would personally suggest a long Wikibreak, as that should clear the ol' cranium a bit), we need to look at the conflict on such pages more holistically and perhaps look at other users involved in this edit-warring. My philosophy is that it takes two to tango, and that as a failed mediation case shows, there is a gigantic dichotomy of perception between certain groups here. Incivility and belligerence is sadly the norm on both sides of the dispute, and I've certainly witnessed some vile invective and falsification, the most humorous from users discussing the validity of english language sources who can barely speak English themselves.

Point by point look at issues raised.

• Hindu Taliban is a gigantic neologism. I personally think its notable and would not vote delete on it, but a report filed by some trolling IP is meaningless. South Asian articles are filled with these ideologues, hoping to gain their fifteen seconds of fame. Unless we see more evidence of wrongdoing, theres nothing here to go off of. I can see where BV is coming from on this issue, but I think there is enough legitimate criticism of such a nebulous term that he is missing by concentrating solely on elimination.
• The Binayak Sen article is a huge clusterfuck. The article needs to be shortened, and Bharatveer's version made the article almost readable. If anything he should be commended for confronting a hagiographical IP warrior.
• Chandrayaan - Bharatveer is definitely at fault here. I see no reason to remove the statement of Obama. The world revolves around America, get over it. However, let us see what BV has to say. ;)
• His accusations hardly merit a block in any way. There is no justifiable basis for using an almost civil statement as a pretext for a punitive block, when that is not even the purpose of a block.
• Wikipedia:Ani#Block_review_please brought no real consensus. Moreschi supported the block, Gnagarra didn't.
• Also I would request Bainer to bring forth his evidence of Todd's edit warring, so that we can view that in light of Todd's case.

Ayubowan.Pectore^talk 04:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dseer = worthless evidence

Dseer appears to be little more than an attention-craving troll, whose testimony is extremely suspect. He seems to be an ideologue, whose evidence was countered by a few users 1, 2. Both these users certainly had their own issues, but pretending Dseer was an honest, unbiased, productive, user is a gigantic stretch, one that I would not expect someone like Todd to make.Pectore^talk 02:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otolemur crassicaudatus

Pot. Kettle. Black. Really? Here's what 30 seconds of digging got me

• Removing an extremely well sourced criticism of the Communist Party of India. Hmm, interesting how you accuse Bharatveer of the same
• Use of ideologues (Arundhati Roy) to create illusions of societal criticism [11][12], when under no interpretation of WP:RS or WP:BLP is such non-expert testimony welcomed.

Again, pot, kettle, black. What we have are two users in glass houses throwing stones at each other. lol.Pectore^talk 02:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Bharatveer

I believe that User:toddst's response results from his non-implementation of a core WP policy of "Assuming good-faith". According to User:Toddst, he started his "actions" after an ANON reported at AIV AIV_editdiff(12:01, 11th November). Please see the article Binayak Sen. Please note that many WP editors (including me) have reported the edits of this particular SPA even before.)see Talk:Binayak Sen & my request for intervention at User:Flewis's talkpage (edit_diff@User_Flewis)(Time 11:48;10th November). Please see my contributions at Binayak Sen. I had tried to clean up that article within WP policies and guideline. I had tried to add more references and I had tried to "balance" the article by "removing" statements from different organisations, which was "irrelevant" to the article. Please see how another uninvolved editor (User:Shovon) also tried to bring admin intervention in the article. User:Toddst instead of seeing all these has in turn accused me of WP:OWN.

Just after this, he made a string of edits ( wikistalking) where he tried to modify/ remove most of my edits in different un-related pages (please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Toddst1).(Articles include Tehelka, where he "moved" my added reference to another section; Hindu Taliban, an afd page initiated by me , where user:Toddst personally attacked me and finally at Chandrayaan.

Please note User:Toddst's remark at AFD page and his conclusion of my edits in Chandrayaan page. It will be very clear that User:Toddst instead of "Assuming good faith" is doing just the reverse. He says "You really seem to be on a roll here. What's up with this edit? It seems like the information you are removing is well sourced, well placed, and on topic. Frankly your action here looks like either vandalism or POV pushing. Stop. Toddst1 (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)" In this case , I had just removed "politics" from a "scientific" article( note that comments from NASA & ESA were not removed). User:toddst needs to explain his edits here as to why he felt my edits were "Vandalism". I would like to conclude my statement this arbcom proceeding need to stopped as it is very clear that there is nothing "substantial" in User:Toddst arguments. Also please note User:Toddst attempts to gather "support" (from admins who had previously blocked me).-Bharatveer (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note User:Toddst's reason for blocking me([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toddst1&diff=prev&oldid=251093994 edit_diff@todd).-Bharatveer (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Transcribed from User's talk page)

Statement by Otolemur crassicaudatus

Bharatveer (talk · contribs) has a history of chronic POV pushing in India related articles which is primarily characterized by an extreme form of Hindu fundamentalism. I am giving here only a few examples of his disruptive edits:

• Deletion of well-sorced information with an edit summary "rm irrelevant comments" from a section titled "International reaction" in the article Chandrayaan-1.
• [13] deletion of reliable source with an edit summary "rm as per WP:RS"
• [14] removal of an important sourced statement from lead, despite the fact there is academic consensus that Bajrang Dal is a militant organization.
• Bharatveer's comments on neutral and uninvolved administrator Toddst1 is extremely unfair. He unjustly accused Toddst1 of "not assuming good faith", and falsely claimed Toddst1 is "harassing" him.

Bharatveer is a pro-Hindutva POV pusher and is well versed in misinterpretation of various Wikipedia policies to serve his own POV. His contributions are primarily in India and Hindutva related articles, and with POV. He was warned many times, but did not change his behavior. This is the time to take final decision. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further false accusation by Bharatveer

After my statement above in this case, Bharatveer has falsely accused me of making personal attack against him. I have asked him to point out where is the personal attack. Per WP:NPA, Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack. Bharatveer has already crossed the line and I hope the arbitrators will be able to find a solution to deal with this user. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tinucherian

I regret to say Bharatveer (talk · contribs) has a long history of POV pushing, edit warring and disruptive editing on Hinduism and Christianity and other religious violence related articles.

• eg: Religious violence in Orissa.
  • Diff]: He injects POV news from unreliable sources like odishatoday.com and removed references to India's top new channels like ndtv.com . I removed his unreliable sources ( though I didnt remove his POV pushing statements like Illegal beef trade and asked for a reliable citation ) . Bharatveer reverted challenging to prove that odishatoday is RS. Further discussion can be seen in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#odishatoday.com . It is evident from the 1) A quick search in odishatoday.com tells for the word "Christian" would give you a list of articles [15] [16] undoubtedly showing its anti-Christian stance. 2) Special:LinkSearch/*.odishatoday.com no other articles have citations in WP from the above site. How is that its only Odishatoday that publishes the news that Bharatveer wants to , when these recent violences are reported by almost every new channels in India ? User:Bharatveer seems to take over the POV Pushing where a banned editor User:Jobxavier left. Technically, Bharatveer was close to WP:3RR at Religious violence in Orissa and Binayak Sen.
• Anything that is anti-Hinduvata , he tends to object like this , though the result of this AFD is very evident.
• Even after Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Bharatveer, one year editing restriction, it is evident that Bharatveer continues to be problematic editor with huge POV pushing and Uncivility. Please also note that Bharatveer has been blocked several times even during the editing restriction period.
• With another user Tripping Nambiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) having a very similar editing pattern, I suspect it is another sock of Bharatveer (talk · contribs · count) and a checkuser is highly neccessary and should be conclusive.
• Today I happened to see this POV edit by an IP ( an article Bharatveer was active) removing references to reliable sources like Press Trust of India and Rediff.com and adding references to dailypioneer.com by 76.184.222.189 (talk · contribs) . An investigation led me to Chandan Mitra who is the the owner of the newspaper/website and also a BJP ( a pro-hindutva party) MP , which makes it evident why the paper is baised. With Bharatveer himself interested in Chandan Mitra and Bharatveer username currently blocked , My stupid mind suspects a loop. It is good to see a CU who was editing as 76.184.222.189 (talk · contribs) .

With all these disruptive editing , It is clear that Bharatveer is hindrance to very purpose of Wikipedia. He was warned many times, but never did he try change his behavior and be constructive. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A RFCU on Bharatveer Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bharatveer was filed to help arbitation. -- Tinu Cherian - 12:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by googlean

I am too very sorry to comment that Bharatveer has a history of disruptive editing in religious articles, especially POV hands in Hinduism and Christianity related stuffs. I wish to present some evidences below:

• I started watching Bharathveer at this comment to me where I was correcting some pov edits in Murder of Swami Lakshmanananda article.

• Later, in this edit, he removed a reliable source of NDTV & pushed pov from an unreliable source.

• I later moved to RS/N to gather more opinions. However, instead of discussing the issue, Bharathweer started edit-warring with me over that unreliable source in Religious violence in Orissa.

With above interactions with me, I strongly feel that Bharathveer has POV hands in Hindu related articles & on the other hand, well knowledgeable in Wikipedia policies which he misinterprets to support his POV’s. Thanks. --Googlean ^Results 07:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

• Bharatveer's statement transcribed from this version of User:Bharatveer's talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 07:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Please provide Bharatveer with notice of this request. If he wishes to respond while he is blocked, he can post a statement on his talkpage and a Clerk should copy it to the appropriate section here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• done Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you; awaiting statement from Bharatveer and input from other interested editors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at Bharatveer's recent behavior, this seems to be a pretty obvious case; I've proposed a pair of motions below. Kirill ^(prof) 01:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to see a presentation of evidence (and a response from Bharatveer) before voting on any motions. Toddst1, you also seem to have been in a content dispute with Bharatveer when you blocked him ([17]), would you like to explain that? --bainer (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

1) Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

There are 10 active Arbitrators, so a majority is 6.

Support:

1. First choice. Kirill ^(prof) 01:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1.1) Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to a comprehensive editing restriction indefinitely. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If he exceeds this limit, fails to discuss a content reversion, or makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling in the Bharatveer case.

There are 10 active Arbitrators, so a majority is 6.

Support:

1. Second choice. Kirill ^(prof) 01:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

---

Motion of clarification in the Tobias Conradi case

In that case, the ArbCom took the line that userspace is not to be used to keep "laundry lists of grudges". This was in a remedy, rather than explicitly given as a principle. The general question of what can and cannot be placed in userspace is addressed also by WP:NOT, and in the end comes down to whether given postings help the mission. Combining the explicit principles in that case, with the thought in the remedy, and policy, gives some relevant concepts on the acceptable use of userspace. The following represents our current interpretation.

Certain kinds of uses are impermissible. These include but are not limited to:

• Lists of grudges, problem users, diffs, just to make a point.
• In general, there should not be negative postings of the attention-seeking kind.
• Blogging: userspace is not for general commentary.
• Pre-emptive developments running ahead of community or ArbCom sanctions

Certain kinds of uses are permissible:

• Userspace may be used to warehouse diffs, but only when intended as part of drafting for active dispute resolution.
• Essays are obviously OK (use Category:Wikipedia essays, and {{essay}}, saying this is what they are). By their nature essays deal with “issues, not personalities”. If they ever cross that line, from the general issue to particular and personal allusions, they lose their privileged status.
• Drafts of political as well as policy pieces are OK, say ahead of elections. It is helpful if they are dated and headed to indicate this.
• Support for enforcement of existing sanctions, where there is a real and present need to share information.

Comment by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

Procedural objection: the case is over a year old, and AGK's proposal could be made policy through the normal procedure of simply editing WP:USER, the official content guideline for such things, or by discussing it on the talk page of same. There is no reason for the Arbcom to get involved, the connection to the case is at best highly tangental, and the Arbcom really shouldn't be in the habit of revisiting old cases simply to make a non-urgent policy rewrite.

Obviously, AGK's good faith is not in question - he was probably simply unaware of WP:USER. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding what is happening here. AGK reformatted the motion - the motion itself was offered by Charles Matthews. Avruch ^T 04:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the formatting is unclear, however, this only makes arbcom's rejection in favour of Charles editing WP:USER more important: In the recent RFC on the arbcom, there was a a strong objection to what was seen as Arbcom writing policy. If arbcom decides to actually write policy by fiat, based on revisiting a year-old case, it would cause excessive controversy, all of which could be easily avoided if the Arbcom simply went to WP:USER as respected members of the community and declaring their support for Charles' change. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that WP:USER already makes clear that content is only permitted with the consent of the community, this seems beside the point. Since the motion was drafted after I consulted on the ArbCom list, I'd be surprised if it didn't represent the "current interpretation", as it says. If I'm wrong about that, well, I'm wrong. It seems clearest to proceed in this way, clarifying first. Maybe there will be commentary that could be illuminating. (The clerk is just doing the clerk's job here, but the system has got Procrustean and templated.) Charles Matthews (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, Shoemaker, I do know what WP:USER is. :)
Avruch has succinctly outlined precisely what I'm thinking here: I was clerking this thread, not making a motion. (Incidentally, only an Arbitrator may do that.)
AGK 12:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, the layout was really unclear as to who made the motion. Your signature was the only one near the motion.

On Charles Matthews' point - I'm really uncomfortable with the increase in arbcom power that this motion would represent - it effectively gives Arbcom the right to make policy simply by finding any past case to which the policy can be connected. Charles Matthews makes excellent suggestions for additions to WP:USER, and they could, in all likelihood, be added there uncontroversially by Charles as an editor. But an arbcom declaration in the same line puts any future decisions on the matter outside of the community's decision. It would mean that User page policy would, from then onwards, only be changeable by appeal to Arbcom.

The basic problem is that, as there is no evidence that the community is unable to handle user page policy, nor that community-based means for implementing this have even been tried, going for the "nuclear option" of Arbcom-declared policy as the first option seems, at the very least, to set a bad precedent; and, at the worst, could cause unnecessary controversy and drama. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't agree to that. WP:USER is a content guideline, but it clearly needs to be read in the light of other policies, such as WP:NOT and WP:HARASS. Content guidelines aren't free-standing entities in their own little world. I'm sure that is common ground. There are some nuances involved, as the draft makes clear. There should be no need for another Arbitration case to deal with grudge-bearing on the site: once is enough. This is a motion to clarify, and if the same material had been appended in Tobias Conradi as commentary, or had been prompted by a request, I doubt we'd be discussing it in this fashion. At this level of detail, it isn't evident there is a need to write all this into WP:USER, but spelling out some of the considerations a year on makes sense to me. At the very least, some people aren't too aware of the "case law" on this matter. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Seddon (talk)

I would like to bring up some issues here. I have no intention of blowing this out of proportions but I had some concerns when reading this request for clarification.

• Could you provide any recent evidence that the community has had issues with these types of pages?
• If so, what evidence is there that the community has sought other venues to try and deal with these problems?
• Has it got to the point where the community is unable to decide for itself?
• If none of these happened why was this request simply not taken to the talk page of WP:USER?
• Given that this is a guideline, it is not enforceable, and if, via this clarification it is being made enforceable doesnt it make it policy?
• I was under the impression that ARBCOM avoided editting or creating policy?

I would be very glad if all of these questions could cleared up for me.

Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 00:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ncmvocalist (talk)

Had this been an ordinary request for clarification, I don't think there'd have been a problem here. Turning it into a motion that's explicitly stuck back into the main case page is one though - I'm surprised that the 3 of you have abstained to reduce the majority, rather than procedurally opposed given the legitimate concerns here. This motion gives all appearances that ArbCom are becoming legislative.

That said, I don't think anyone strongly disagrees with the proposals itself; rather, it's the manner in which its done. Why the reluctance to put it into policy? Its inclusion doesn't need to be limited to any one content guideline/policy (such as USER); the relevant parts can be put into relevant guidelines/policies (whether its HARASS or NOT or whatever else). WP:NLT was amended just before the Haines case closed so I don't see why this should be any different just because it would involve more than one page. Additionally, the proposals aren't remarkably 'new' - the community have come across these particular scenarios in the recent past and used common sense along with policy, rather than relying on any cases. So amending "case law" as opposed to "legislation" is questionable & unnecessary as far as this issue is concerned - I don't think we have, or ever will look to "case law" to handle what is specified in these proposals.

This should not be a motion to amend a previous case. If the Committee wants to give guidance (on request), it shouldn't be any more than a request for clarification that gets archived on the talk page of the case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Barberio

The Arbcom are entitled to vote for this resolution if they want to.

They may also vote on a resolution of if the moon is made of cheese.

Neither of the votes can have any effect.

The Arbitration Policy is clear on this, ArbCom have no ability to create new policy by fiat, no matter if they can tangentially link it to a case.

Charles, I think this borders on an abuse of your station as Arbitrator to push for policy changes you want, and you should probably withdraw it and use the normal process of changing policy by consensus. What you ask for isn't greatly objectionable, but this is not the way to do it.--Barberio (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Background note from Avruch

A recent case where the motion offered would have an impact can be found here. I'm sure that Charles Matthews left it out because the principle has wider application and might not fit perfectly with this particular incident. Avruch ^T 03:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A small point from Fut.Perf.

I stumble over this: "Lists of grudges, problem users, diffs, just to make a point." (my emphasis).

There's a bizarre tendency in Wikipedia-internal jargon, inspired no doubt by that infamous essay, to treat the expression "to make a point" as if it denoted something bad. Worse, it appears that many people use the phrase "you are just making a point!" to mean: "you are saying something I don't like". Let me point out that to make points is the whole point of – well, of what? Language. Communicating. Why on earth would anybody ever write down anything if not in order to get his point across? My point being, please point out more precisely what you mean at that point. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually as in "We know where you live". People don't say that to start a conversation. What is another concise way to explain why they say that? Charles Matthews (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to get your point. Are you seriously comparing the collection of wikipedia complaints to a veiled threat of physical violence? (That, incidentally, is a "concise way to explain why they say that" other phrase). – But anyway, on further consideration, I think I agree with Shoemaker's Holiday. There is no indication the community isn't able to decide on its own what the legitimate limits of userspace writing are. As long as the community is not in an intractable, serious and divisive impasse about how to handle this issue, you guys have no business deciding what the policy should be. – By the way, "Pre-emptive developments running ahead of community or ArbCom sanctions" is another one that goes beyond my semantic guessing capacities. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

• Voting section below put into the usual format for these motions. AGK 21:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

Motion

{Here should be placed the precise text of the motion—that is, what decision is to be passed, and what current case decision it should supersede. Or, alternatively, here should be placed the text of the "official statement" supporting the decision. Clerk assistance available upon a shout! AGK 21:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

There are 10 active Arbitrators, so a majority is 6.

• Support:

1. Support Charles Matthews (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC) (proposing)[reply]

   Comment: the proposal below to move them into a case that will soon be voting is not anything I have a big problem with. They've been looked at here, and if they are in some way "folded" as comment into a case, that will serve. The content itself seems not to be so contentious for the ArbCom, so the draft has done its work. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Per FloNight's vote: OK then, this turns into an annexe of a Workshop for something. Others please edit as necessary. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Clear enough, and will help deal with the issue we've had in which people cite the case as an exclusive, rather than inclusive, list. James F. (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose:

1. This issue comes up regularly and there is confusion about it so interpretation of the issue by ArbCom will be beneficial. But I also prefer including this in an active case for the reasons stated by Newyorkbrad. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain:

1. Although I am in general agreement with Charles Matthews' proposals, and I do not believe any great harm would come of our adopting them in the fashion proposed here, there appears to be some objection that the action proposed would be somewhat legislative in character, i.e., the Arbitration Committee creating or revising policy outside the scope of a pending dispute. Working for the adoption of these ideas either through editing of WP:USER or by proposing them as principles in the pending Piotrus 2 and Kuban Kazak cases, both of which involve disputes over the use of userspace, may provide a more readily accepted vehicle for addressing the issues presented. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per NYB. This is really guidance rather than an actionable provision, but there are better venues available for putting this forward. Kirill ^(prof) 01:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. I also agree with Brad. --bainer (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---