Arbitration​Committee

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

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.

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kingofmann

I am David Howe the subject of a biography here on Wikipedia. I have another request open for arbitration. As a result of my request for Arbitration here a campaign of harassment has been started and libelous claims are being made against me at the link above and on the talk page of the biography. I don't know what the intent is and I do not care. I don't understand why I have to tolerate this abuse. What do I have to do here to get immediate intervention on my behalf.--Kingofmann (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Television Episodes Edit Wars

Initiated by John254 at 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Casliber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Geni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sesshomaru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Collectonian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Roses2at (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eusebeus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pixelface (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ned Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters

Statement by John254

In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters#Parties_urged, this Committee found that

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

Actually, however, the participants in this content dispute have choosen to settle the matter through massive edit warring -- for example, see the page histories of A Mattress on Wheels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and The Man Who Killed Batman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A review of Special:Contributions/TTN clearly indicates that these edit wars have affected a large number of articles, and have therefore become quite disruptive. For instance, TTN re-redirected 8 articles in a single minute on 20:40, 13 January 2008 [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. Of course, the Arbitration Committee is not asked to resolve the underlying content dispute on its merits, or even to interpret the present state of community consensus regarding this issue. However, edit warring this severe presents clear user conduct issues that are amenable to resolution by the Arbitration Committee. John254 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the statement by Collectonian, I have included all the users who I found to be involved in these edit wars as parties to the case, without attempting to ascertain their degree of involvement or relative fault. Should this case be accepted, users with only incidental involvement obviously would not have any findings or remedies issued against them. Moreover, because I have not scrutinized the page history of every involved article, there may be some users with significant involvement in the edit wars who I have neglected to include, and who would need to be added to this case. John254 02:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Eusebeus (talk · contribs) and Pixelface (talk · contribs) to this request. Both of these users are clearly involved in the edit warring over the redirection of a large number of articles -- for Eusebeus, see [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25], and for Pixelface see [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. John254 04:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collectonian

I was not involved in the Episode and Characters RfA in any way, shape, or form. I request an explanation as to why I have been included in this second RfA and evidence that I have been involved in "massive edit warring" regarding episode articles, as I only did a single revert in the two articles mentioned as per some discussion over in ANI. I did not repeat the revert and didn't even put the page in my watch list. So please provide evidence specific to me. Collectonian (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sesshomaru

I'd like to know myself how I've been involved in this get up. One revert, to me, does not count as "edit warring". If I'm listed here because I often side with TTN on occasions regarding WP:EPISODE and WP:NN, then I suggest that you, John254, remove me from this nonsense. Bear you any sufficient evidence in my part in this so-called "ploy"? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate, see explanation.Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sceptre

This is a case that needs to be examined more in more detail. The previous RfAr did nothing at all to stop the edit wars. Will ^(talk) 03:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Casliber

My involvement in this particular standoff began a few hours ago when I noted the rollback of individual episodes of a famous British sitcom Open All Hours. Though (as anyone would guess looking through my contribs) I am an inclusionist, I have abided by results of AfD debates. However, I noted this one had not been discussed at TTN had merged content and removed redlinks without any formal process, so I reverted [34] and recommended that this be taken up at AfD. Another contributor BlackKite, whose views lie more with the TTN than mine I'd guess has conceded [35] that these episodes are likely to have sources. Upon which I was reverted by TTN, [36], then User:Sesshomaru, [37] and User:Eusebeus on one of the episodes [38]

The rationale used is that it is a redirect not a delete, yet the material on the episode pages is deleted (and no attempt was made to move any material over to the parent page). AfD is about debating whether a particular article should exist as such on wikipedia and whether there is a link to a larger article or not is irrelevant. I am concerned that what is happening is Gaming the system to bypass AfD and avoid analysis over removal of material. It is certainly inconsistent with recent policy on AfD. Even Wikipedia:N#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines suggests some sort of time frame rather than minutes. If hoaxes and other such material gets a few days then why the need to remove instantly?

All I asked for was that the material be discussed at AfD to obtain a broader consensus.

I note TTN has voiced this opinion at the last hearing, however I have not seen that happening today.

I note in this debate, there has been criticism over the speed it came after this one.

I should point out there have been other editors involved in several other debates over the past few months with different TV series, so that restricting this debate to these two series and these participants may not be helpful in the long run - in agrement with Sceptre above. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Crotalus that part of the issue is where we draw the line at notability and essentially how much detail/depth wikipedia should go into. The great pity is that large swathes of material is deleted after there has only been a cursory, if any, look for independent sources. Sadly, much is not directly accessible online and requires actually having written material. In this way I feel WP can raise the standard of much pop. culture material that is circulated. Many editors are young who have never seen a university library and the wealth of material therein.

Statement by Firsfron

Sesshomaru states above that he should not be a party to this case because he only did one revert, but what he actually did was one revert on each article, and all he was doing was reverting what the last editor did, in its entirety, in reverse order (there are no articles in that run that were not reverted to the version by TTN). There is no way that Sesshomaru was checking what he was doing. He was just going down the list and undoing each and every edit without discussion, with an edit summary of "See WP:EPISODE, an afd is not required for cases like these". Firsfron of Ronchester 04:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Yukichigai

I wish I could say I'm surprised this has come up in arbitration again, but I'm not. Not at all.

I've already expressed my opinion on this matter when I started the previous RFArb, but to quickly summarize over 200 page redirects in 12 hours is way too fast and too numerous to be considered acceptable. I also think Kirill summed it up best when he proposed the Fait accompli principle in the last RFArb.

What we have here is a new kind of edit war, with one side attempting to overpower the other by virtue of the sheer volume of edits and little else. I had hoped the tactic would die off in the wake of the previous RFArb, but it appears that is not the case; almost all the "chief offenders" have gone back to their old ways. TTN holds a new record, having been a significant component in (if not the focus of) numerous WP:AN/I threads for the past 12 days straight, and a number of other editors on both sides are working on similar "accomplishments" as well. There is no way in hell this is going to stop on its own. Barring some Jimbo Ex Machina I predict that RFArb is going to be treated to a regular posting of requests to resolve this dispute.

If the Arbitration Committee does accept this case (again) let me say this: a final decision with no consequences for anybody, or at least no clear-cut determination of (to be blunt) who's being a dick, isn't going to solve anything. The community needs a clear, unmistakable determination of what behavior is acceptable and what isn't for this dispute to even slow down, much less stop. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 05:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie

The two sides are both claiming they're in the right, and are incessantly edit-warring over and over and over again. No one person violates 3 Reverts, but there's a heck of a lot of Disruptive Editing going on. This likely will not stop until made to stop, so on that terms, I urge the Arbitration Committee to accept this case.

However, I note with dismay that one side scrupulously notes the policies that un-referenced episodes of dubious quality violate, and the other side seems to point that because more of the same has existed, that by god, they should IAR, because it's UNFAIR to delete an unreferenced, questionably notable episode on "trivial pop culture show A", if there's an unreferenced, questionably notable episode on "trivial pop culture show B". I have even seen someone claim that because there's been an article on Bart the General for four and a half years, that there is no way it could violate policy on notability, verifiability and other encyclopedic rules. [39].

If it wasn't for the fact that it would be POINTy, I would redirect this myself (and I've not been involved in any of this until the most recent flare up on ANI). It is unduly long, has one reference to notability (that it was used in a humor study of the brain), and is filled to the brim with unencyclopedic, useless trivia. It is a wonderful article, for a Simpsons-pedia. For an EN-Cyclopedia, it is the equivalent of using a nuclear bomb to swat a rogue electron. Overkill. ArbCom does not make policy, it just reigns in those who violate policy. And there's a lot of that going on that needs to be reigned in. SirFozzie (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::Er, no, SirFozzie, as I said above, I suggested the ones I was involved with go through AfD to gain a wider consensus.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(please move your comment to your own statement, ArbStatements are not supposed to be threaded conversations, but I will reply). Consensus is wonderful. Consensus is great. I've been accused of even being a consensus wonk at times. Consensus makes the world go round. However, Consensus can not say "X is Right!" when Policy says "X is wrong!" Consensus cannot make up for a fundamental lack of proof of Notability, of Reliable Sources, and Verifiability. As I said, some of the articles are wonderfully detailed. They should be moved to another -pedia that deals with the shows in question (or even a TV-pedia). However, according to the policies about what an article should be, they fail on just about every tick there is. They're like kudzu, eternally growing.. but it never goes anywhere. SirFozzie (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ned Scott

Instead of a whole new case, I'd urge arbcom to just look at some of the proposed stuff from the last case, and re-evaluate that. However, even that might not be necessary, since those fighting with reverting are asking for a block. (I say this to both sides of the dispute). It no longer matters who's right or wrong. I know how TTN and others feel, and I know how frustrating it is, but we have to do something that tells others that we honestly are trying to help others understand, and not just doing things with force. -- Ned Scott 08:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fut.Perf.

We are talking not just about enforcing consensus here, we are talking about enforcing fundamental policy. Episode articles that consist only of plot renarration (note: plot "summary" would be a euphemism in most cases) infringe on copyrights. Plot summaries must be subordinate to encyclopedic analysis. Where that is not the case, they must be ruthlessly removed just like unjustified non-free images. Same legal situation, same policy. I've personally given block warnings to people who reinstate them. If that makes me a party to this case, so be it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Crotalus horridus

I disagree with Future Perfect's analysis. There is no evidence that any of these plot summaries in any way violate copyright. A complete (or nearly complete) transcript would probably do so, but these don't come close to that. Furthermore, most episode articles do not consist only of plot summaries; they often contain lists of trivia (which are unencyclopedic, but do improve the case for fair use) or other commentary. Even if an episode article did consist entirely of a plot summary, it would have to be taken in the context of Wikipedia as a whole, where it is a tiny fraction of the material, most of which is GFDL. Please remember to avoid copyright paranoia. No one has cited a single case where any website has ever been sent a takedown notice over plot summaries. Furthermore, no one at the Foundation has ever raised any issue with the lengthy, in-universe discussion on Wikimedia sites such as Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia (nor should they).

Framing this as a copyright issue is inaccurate and unhelpful. Rather, this is a disagreement about what kind of encyclopedia Wikipedia should be, and what the threshold of inclusion should be for trivia. I do not think that trivia and in-universe plot summaries have any place in a mainstream encyclopedia, but I do think that they need and deserve their own site. I have, on several occasions, proposed a project fork to handle such materials. I think this will prove to be the only viable long-term solution. *** Crotalus *** 11:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pixelface

Short version
I'm really not surprised the issue of television episode articles is again before the committee, but I do not believe I have been involved in any edit wars over television episodes articles. On January 13, 2008 I removed redirects from 96 Scrubs episode articles and then discovered an ANI thread had been initiated[40] against me. It should be noted that Corvus cornix did not leave a message on my talk page asking me to stop before he initiated that ANI thread. Four minutes after initiating[41] that ANI thread and after I had removed 96 redirects, on January 13, 2008 at 22:22 (UTC), Corvus cornix left a {{ANI-notice}} on my talk page[42] and informed me there was currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents involving me. Corvus cornix said "Pixelface is reverting all of TTN's edits." and that is patently false. I was removing redirects from Scrubs episode articles because there appeared to me to be no consensus for those articles be redirects on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. After the ANI thread began, I removed 3 more redirects from Scrubs episode articles and then stopped removing them. I have been open to discuss my edits. No action was brought against me. I've never been accused before of edit-warring after performing one edit to several articles I've never edited before, and such a definition of "edit war" is news to me.

Long version
If this statement is too long, arbitrators or clerks are free to refactor it or remove it. I believe I first became aware of television episode articles being turned into redirects in October 2007. On October 17, 2007, I removed several {{merge}} tags that were placed on articles linked from List of Pee-wee's Playhouse episodes. I believe my first interaction with TTN occurred in October 2007 on Talk:List of Pee-wee's Playhouse episodes. I asked[43] TTN about The Simpsons episode articles at that time. His reply[44] seemed to indicate to me that The Simpsons episode articles did not each have to assert individual notability — they inherited notability from their Good or Featured articles.

After the Pee-wee's Playhouse episode articles were redirected, I added[45] what I thought was real-world information to the episode article To Tell the Tooth, but TTN decided to redirect the article anyway.[46] Seeing that real-world information was not going to make the article stay around, I didn't edit them further.

I was not an involved party in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters case but I did make 6 edits to the talk page of the Proposed decision from December 15-17, 2007, suggesting that List of South Park episodes be changed to List of The Simpsons episodes in the proposed decision.[47][48][49][50][51][52]

From December 16-18, 2007, I left 4 comments on TTN's talk page[53][54][55][56] asking about The Simpsons (season 16) and why he felt those articles did not need redirects.

I made several edits to the /Workshop during the arbitration case. I proposed a remedy during that case that TTN must notify the major contributors of an article after placing a {{merge}} tag in an article and I still think that's a good idea. On December 22, 2007, I create a template called {{mergenote}} for this purpose, similar to {{AFDNote}}, and I encourage editors to use it. I left a comment on WT:MERGE about it. I believe I have used that template in one instance, to inform the major contributors of various Dragon Ball film articles that there was a merge discussion taking place at Talk:List of Dragon Ball films. I found the major contributors of those articles using Aka's history stats tool.

On January 13, 2008, I made several comments at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes and later removed two sections from the guideline WP:EPISODE[57][58] This was reverted by Collectonian and she left a {{uw-delete1}} template on my talk page. I then explained my edits at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes[59] and made some more comments at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes. I then made some comments at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes, which looked to me to indicate that there is no consensus for the Scrubs episode articles to be redirects.

In my text editor I prepared a list of urls to each of the Scrubs episode articles as they appear in List of Scrubs episodes, adding "&redirect=no" to the end of the urls. On January 13, 2008 at 21:47, I began[60] removing the redirects from the Scrubs episode articles by going to the urls I had prepared, looking at the history, and undoing the redirects. Initially I left no additional comment in my edit summary, just the standard undo message. After undoing 27 edits which took me 13 minutes, I began to include an additional reason in my edit summary, "There is no consensus to redirect these articles", because I noticed the undo message at the top of the screen says "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message."

After removing 96 redirects, on January 13, 2008 at 22:22 (UTC), Corvus cornix left a {{ANI-notice}} on my talk page[61] and informed me there was currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents involving me. Corvus cornix left no prior message on my talk page asking me to stop removing redirects from Scrubs episode articles. After I saw the ANI notice on my talk page, I removed another redirect[62], made a comment at the ANI thread against me[63], replied[64] on my talk page to a comment Eusebeus had left[65], made another comment at ANI[66], replied[67] to a comment Rjd0060 had left[68] on my talk page, and removed 1 more redirect from a Scrubs episode article[69].

On January 13, 2008, at 22:36, I made my last removal of redirects from Scrubs episode articles with this edit[70] I then responded to several comments in the ANI thread, and responded to more comments on my talk page. I then noticed Eusebeus had left a comment on TTN's talk page[71] and I left a reply there that was a bit uncivil[72].

I made some more replies at the ANI thread. On January 13, 2008 at 23:26, I left a message[73] on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes that I would wait a week to remove the redirects again. On my talk page, Black Kite told me this was a threat and I responded a few times on my talk page. During the ANI thread, Sceptre archived the thread twice and I removed the archive boilerplates twice. I left a message[74] on Sceptre's talk page asking him to please stop closing the ANI thread, because I felt that I had to clear my name and people were discussing a block of me.

I replied several more times in the ANI thread against me and made 3 more comments at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes[75][76][77]

I feel that the current consensus among editors who edit actual articles and not just guideline pages is that individual episode articles do not have to assert notability by including significant coverage from reliable sources — as evidenced by the several sub-articles of List of The Simpsons episodes, List of South Park episodes, and List of Futurama episodes. I think it's biased to allow those television shows to have articles for every one of their episodes but not allow the same for other television series. The article Bart the General has existed since May 8, 2003[78] and it has never been a target of these massive episode article merge-tag/redirect-sweeps. The article has existed for over 4 1/2 years. As far as I can tell, the first reference to independent coverage was added today[79]. I believe that article shows that WP:EPISODE (and I suppose WP:FICT as well) do not actually document consensus but are trying to make consensus into what the editors there want it to be.

I feel the entire ANI thread against me was ridiculous, but I think the arbitration committee should take this case and issue some actual blocks. I believe their remedy in the last case was totally ineffective.

I do not feel I have engaged in disruptive editing. I do not feel I have engaged in edit-warring. I made 99 edits to Scrubs episode articles. I removed a redirect once and only once on each of them. But I am willing to be blocked for months at a time if TTN and Eusebeus are blocked as well because I feel their actions are seriously harming the project and sending the wrong message that episode articles are okay — but only if they're for popular cartoons. If the arbitration committee decides to not accept this case, I think WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT should be fully protected from editing until the disputes over them are resolved. The mass-redirects of fictional content should also stop. This case should definitely be evaluated with the previous arbitration case in mind. --Pixelface (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to SirFozzie's statement, *I* was the editor who mentioned that the Bart the General article has existed for 4 1/2 years, but the article does not violate any policies. The information in the article can be verified by watching the episode. And it's not original research to watch an episode and describe it — WP:PSTS allows that, it's called source-based research. WP:NOT#PLOT says articles are not simply plot summaries and if an episode article has an infobox, it's not simply a plot summary and does not violate WP:NOT#PLOT. There is no policy against episode articles. Wikipedia has several featured articles about television episodes. And WP:N is a guideline. When large list articles are split into sub-articles per WP:SIZE and WP:SUMMARY, I do not think each sub-article should then have to establish individual notability. These episode articles do not violate policy. Neutral point of view, however, is expected of all editors and TTN has shown he has no interest in applying the same criteria to The Simpsons episode articles that don't contain significant coverage in reliable sources. The editing policy says "During this process, the article might look like a first draft—or worse, a random collection of notes and factoids. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential, and have faith that the editing process will turn it into brilliant prose." TTN allows those articles time to develop, yet does not allow the same for other television series. --Pixelface (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WAS 4.250

Wikipedia's popular culture articles constitutes the world's single most useful Popular Culture Encyclopedia and every year it gets better. The Wikipedia we are trying to create, as the sum of all knowledge, is the sum of all possible encyclopedias. Help that effort to make it an even better culture encyclopedia within the vast Wikipedia encyclopedia that contains all other encyclopedias. Don't try to destroy it. I suppose if some were editing Wikipedia in 2003, they would have put up the whole encyclopedia for deletion because at that time no article on Wikipedia was adequately sourced by today's standards. We don't delete an article just because it is not yet perfect. We should never never delete an article just because it lacks something, if what it does have is useful. An article that has an accurate plot is useful. Lacking other data makes it a kind of stub, needing additional material. It should eventually be more than that, but deleting useful articles because they are stubs by one measure or another is simply pulling up crops because they are only half grown. Where is the sense in that? WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Austrian economics

Initiated by Zenwhat (talk) at 15:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Zenwhat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gregalton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Coccyx Bloccyx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Brusegadi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• East718 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Childhoodsend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AuburnPilot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Skomorokh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Big Brother 1984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 68.187.244.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sarsaparilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Karmaisking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

(Still in the process of notifying them.) Zenwhat (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request noted. Skomorokh ^incite 15:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All parties have been notified. Just in the process of posting diffs here to confirm it. Zenwhat (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The request involves a block, substantial edit-warring (across several pages -- not merely those discussed in this basic summary), a rejected page-protect, and wheel-warring. This claim is demonstratably false. Coccyx isn't an admin and the appropriate block log is here [80] and no wheel-warring appears to have been attempted. A mistake on my part, apologies. Zenwhat (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All parties have been notified. [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90]

Zenwhat (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Zenwhat

It has been noted before that trolls are sometimes capable of winning successful edit-wars through sockpuppetry and having admins which support them block editors for intellectual reasons. This case appears to be such an example.

In this case, at my request (and anyone is free to reject my request) I would like the arbitrators to make the following assumptions about policy to be made explicit:

• That there be roughly no assumptions be made at all in the case of evaluating my statements
• No personal attacks against me or the accused (I'm saying this to be explicit -- not for admins, but for non-admins involved)
• Invocations of past offenses are potential signs of bad faith, but not proof of guilt
• The burden of proof rest with me to prove my case
• That Assume good faith applies especially upon the accused because of the presumption of innocence
• That, despite the current wording of Wikipedia policy, it be firmly recognized that User:AuburnPilot and others accused have an individual inalienable right to edit Wikipedia because of its core policy: A free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Per Wikipedia is not a democracy, this freedom may not be arbitrarily taken away by the majority.

It is not my intent to abuse wikipedian bureaucracy to remove editors I don't like. With that said, the evidence surrounding this case may be found here: User:Zenwhat/Evidence

I have no specific requests at this time, but would like the community and ArbCom itself to decide how this matter ought to be handled. Because of the likelihood that it will come to light and an "attempt to vanish" before putting forth an ArbCom proposal would seem deceptive, I now disclose: User:Nathyn is my previous account, I did likely make some contentious, silly edits, including vandalism when I was far younger. However, overall, my edits were constructive Actually, a quick review of my contributions shows that all of my contributions under my previous account were good. It appears I only vandalized a few times while logged out, with no actual proof of it, and my claims about past behavior are unverifiable, and thus put forth strictly on a voluntary basis Zenwhat (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC), I have never engaged in sockpuppetry.[reply]

I have included User:Sarsaparilla in this case, because this overall problem -- and the possibility of her being the sockpuppet of one of the above users, see here. Karmaisking has been included because he is a well-known sockpuppet, so it's certainly acceptable that he be included in this investigation.

Statement by User:AuburnPilot

I'm not sure why I'm named as an involved party here, as my only involvement has been to block Zenwhat for edit warring and a clear cut violation of the three revert rule on the Austrian School article (diffs: [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96]). Zenwhat was warned by several editors, including myself, before he reverted the 5th time and received a standard 24 hour block. My involvement is negligible, and I have no intentions of joining an arbitration case related to a single 3RR block. I would, however, encourage Zenwhat to familiarize himself with policy; especially WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR, and WP:NPOV. - auburnpilot talk 15:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I'm also not sure why Zenwhat names me specifically in his claim that everyone has a right to edit Wikipedia, but I firmly disagree with that assessment. Nobody has a right to edit Wikipedia; it is a privilege that can be revoked at anytime. - auburnpilot talk 15:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by east718

I am uninvolved aside from a declined protection request and this alert. Mountain. Molehill. east.718 at 16:07, January 13, 2008

East718, I don't have much to say in your case other than that your page-protect was clearly unjustified, when I asked you to reconsider your position you made statements that contradicted policy word-for-word. When I pointed this out, you were rude and told me to go away.

In the case of Auburn, he\she is blatantly a POV-pusher. How exactly a WP:SPA can get admin privileges -- I am absolutely curious. The list of names above is the list of people "relevant" to this case -- that doesn't necessarily only include people that directly edited such articles. This case is specifically about Austrian economics, but it is also more generally about the vandalism on Austrian economics, which is why I also invoked User:Sarsaparilla in the original discussion, though she herself has not edited Austrian economics. Zenwhat (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

• Decline. Nothing here approaching the need for an arbitration case, which is the last step in the dispute resolution process. There is no evidence of any attempts at even talkpage discussion of the content issues raised. In addition, portions of the request for arbitration are not comprehensible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. No need for a case is evident. The Community can handle any issues that need to be addressed. FloNight (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per both of my colleagues above. Can I suggest that Zenwhat's essay on Wikiliberalism may be more appropriate for a user subpage than in project space? Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asian fetish

Initiated by user:Tkguy at 08:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Tkguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Crotalus horridus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Saranghae honey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Crotalus horridus diff Cool Hand Luke diff Saranghae honey diff

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Due to the fact that this personal attack involved links to an Asian forum that I've participate in, I felt the need to protect my identity and my postings on the forum from public scrutiny. I decided against RFC not only because it attracts too much public attention but also because the last time this was done on this article diff this brought User:Cool Hand Luke, one of the involved parties, to the article. So around 1/4/2008 I tried to contact an admin I could trust. So I used the wikipedia email feature and emailed User:Neil. I didn't receive a response so I left Neil a note on his talk page that I sent an email. I still haven't receive a response.
• I then emailed user:East718 and left a note on his talk page.user:East718 at first claim that I wanted him to get involved with the dispute on Asian fetish. I wrote back that I was asking for help with regards to personal attacks on the Asian fetish talk page. I then stated that I would submit and arbitration request since none of the admin wanted to help me. He then replied that he didn't have the time to help me and that he was sorry and offered to refer somebody else.
• I emailed user:Royalguard11 on 1/5/2008 and left a note on his talk page. He replied back that since he was the protecting admin (the page is currently locked by him due to edit waring) he can't get involved in debates. I pointed out that I was not asking him to get involved and that I needed help with personal attacks. He then wrote back that he had trouble finding the personal attack links in my email. I replied that the links was in my first email to him. Apparently his response was put on the Asian fetish talk page and he acknowledges the personal attack but indicates that I am causing the problem for threatening to open an arbitration.
• Posted on the Asian fetish talk page that I would submit an arbitration request if the Personal attacks were not removed and a apology was not made.
• Posted a message on user:Crotalus horridus's talk page for him to remove his personal attack on me and that I would start an arbitration process if it was not done so.
  • user:Crotalus horridus deleted my entry on his talk page.
• Posted a message on user:Cool Hand Luke's talk page for him to remove his personal attack on me and that I would start an arbitration process if it was not done so.
  • user:Cool Hand Luke, an admin, didn't delete the comments, instead marked it. This is similiar to his actions when I was previously attacked by user:Kintetsubuffalo by being called a "pedantic little creep". I called him out on this personal attack but then user:Cool Hand Luke rather than deleting this comment, he marked the comment and labeled it "Incivility, apparently from both sides. Comment on the content, not the contributers". I didn't respond to the personal attacks on Asian fetish that is the focus of this WP:RFAR, because I knew there would be a high risk of being labeled "uncivil".
• Posted a message on user:Saranghae honey's talk page for him or her to remove his or her personal attack on me and that I would start an arbitration process if it was not done so.
• I deleted the personal attacks off the talk:Asian fetish page diff. Tkguy (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tkguy

I was personally attacked and stalked by editors on Asian fetish. I hope that the arbitration board will punish these people and roll back their comments on talk:Asian fetish. The Asian fetish page is under protection due to edit warring. The involved party here intend to add significant changes as inferred below, without obtaining consensus diff. I would like the page to remain protected until after this arbitration has been completed.

Recently the seemingly perpetual edit waring took a very negative turn on this article. Rather than researching Asian fetish, user:Crotalus horridus chosed to research me with the passion of a stalker. Soon afterwards user:Cool Hand Luke and user:Saranghae honey did the same. Here user:Crotalus horridus posted on the talk:Asian fetish, directions on how to "research" me diff and discovered that I posted to an asian forum. He then proceeded to create a section on the talk:Asian fetish titled "==More about Tkguy==" and poplated it with links to some of the posts I've made 1st & 2nd 3rd. Of course it does not matter what I think or believe so long as I abide by wikipedia's rules. Here is the entire portion of the talk page with the personal attacks. user:Crotalus horridus labelled me as a racist by writing the following:

User:Saranghae honey supported user:Crotalus horridus actions by adding to this section with his or her own research on me here and here and is obviously working with user:Crotalus horridus in that he or she created a copy of Asian fetish here, while it is still under protection to circumvent obtaining community consensus. This was done at the advice of user:Crotalus horridus, diff. Saranghae honey's invitation to Crotalus horridus to update a copy of Asian fetish. Cool Hand Luke's approval of Saranghae honey's circumvention of gaining consensus.

User:Cool Hand Luke, an admin, encouraged more personal attacks by contributing to this section. He suggested that I should be blocked from editting diff.Then made the following comment diff: He then posted two links (first one, second one) to posts I've made on the forum. He wrote that this was wrong and then does this not once but TWICE!

This section ends with user:Crotalus horridus and User:Saranghae honey discussing about how it's ok to track what I am doing on wikipedia and arrogantly have this discussion on the Asian fetish tallk page diff.

I hope that the people will look past the emotions that the topic of Asian fetish invokes and see that I was personally attacked, bullied and stalked and will not let such actions go unpunished. And I am hoping that the board members will understand that the kind of actions these people are taking are consistent with the kind of editing and commenting they have been making on this article. Tkguy (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to Admin board regarding involved parties' and Phoenix-wiki comments: Please note that all accusations being made against me are not being substantiated here and are possibly being used to draw attention away from the issue of me being personally attacked. I already provided proof that an admin is aware that comments made to me were inappropriate, Royalguard11's acknowledgement that an inappropriate comment was made against Tkguy. Even User:Cool Hand Luke acknowledged that researching me was not appropriate and then does it himself. And then he marks the section under "WP:CIVIL—remember, comment on the content, not the contributer". But I can't see how this is can be accepted as behaving in a "responsible manner, as expected of an administrator" after he made significant entries encouraging this kind of behavior. Tkguy (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to Newyorkbrad: I am confused by your suggestion can you please clarify what "appropriate involvement of administrators" means? I already noted that I went to 3 admins for help. One ignored my request for help. The second told me to look elsewhere. The third told me that the problem is with me telling others that I will initiate an arbitration. Also note that User:Cool Hand Luke is an admin and is an involved party. So 4 admins will not help me resolve this personal attack issue. And the last time we on the page did RfC User:Cool Hand Luke came to the page and user:Crotalus horridus came back after taking a long hiatus from editing this article.Tkguy (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to Saranghae honey: So you create a sandbox to avoid community input and you accuse me of pushing a POV? And you initiated the 4th failed AfD for Asian fetish AfD. Can you please substantiate your allegations that I am trying to push a POV? Seriously you keep accusing me of that but never ever provided actual proof. As for the stalking issue and personal attacks. Why are you trying to make it out like I am focused on your Sandbox and your discussion that it's ok to check my edits on the talk:Asian fetish? I pointed these things out to show that you are clearly working with user:Crotalus horridus and User:Cool Hand Luke. You clearly support user:Crotalus horridus personal attacks on me and his stalking of me off wikipedia. Tkguy (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to Crossmr: I recommend all to read the content of User:Crossmr link. Be aware much of the references in it that user:Crotalus horridus makes to edits that I've made were some of the first editing I've done on wikipedia. As I am still, even now, new to all this. Even though I believe I explain very well the situation of the edit wars on the page. But still this arbitration is once again regarding PERSONAL ATTACKS ON ME that were not being dealt with. Tkguy (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to Cool Hand Luke: Typically, I believe, disparaging remarks should be rolled back from the pages. You had the opportunity to do this twice but did not. Since you made your own personal attacks on me and posted links to the asian forums on the talk page, I don't think you can say that this issue is moot. Tkguy (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to Crotalus horridus: Can you please stay on topic? This is regarding your personal attacks on me. You make all these accusations and not one link to substantiate them. And I want all to know that you submitted the 3rd failed AfD for Asian fetish AfD. As for my brush with the 3rr rule, well that was when I first started editing and two individuals, user:Kaitenbushi and user:Christopher Mann McKay tricked me into violating the rule. The admin realized this and reverted my block and blocked one of the other two, user:Kaitenbushi for violating the 3rr rule. They then blocked user:Christopher Mann McKay because apparently he voliated the 3rr rule on yet another page and was rewarded an extra long 48 hour block for his work on tricking me. Most of the story right here. Tkguy (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Crotalus horridus

User:Tkguy is a disruptive single-purpose account who exclusively edits articles related to Asiaphilia, Asian fetish, and related issues. By his own admission, he has an "obsession with proving the prevalence of asiaphilia." He has shown himself consistently unable to follow our policies on neutral point of view and verifiability. The Asian fetish article has been protected twice recently, when the only real edit-warring was being instigated by Tkguy. Everyone else but him was discussing issues appropriately on the article talk page. Tkguy also has a very unclear understanding of Wikipedia policy on various other matters. He was blocked for violating the three-revert rule a while back, and unblocked early on the grounds that he didn't know about the rule. Above, he continues to show poor understanding by implying that there is something wrong about creating a sandbox in user space to continue to work on an article while it is protected. Nothing in Wikipedia policy or practice supports that contention.

It should be noted that Tkguy's forum posts show up very high on a Google search for his nickname. It's not as if I did any deep digging here. If he wished to retain anonymity, he could have chosen any other nickname he wanted.

No, it doesn't matter what Tkguy thinks as long as he abides by Wikipedia rules. But WP:NPOV and WP:V are two of our most important rules, and he has shown a repeated inability to follow them.

I urge Tkguy to withdraw this arbitration request. *** Crotalus *** 08:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Saranghae honey (talk · contribs)

Tkguy made no attempt at dispute resolution. If there was one, the proper consequence should have stopped Tkguy's edit warring and aggressive POV pushing at Asian fetish. He indeed is a single purpose account that has done little editing outside Asian fetish and Asiaphilia. Other editors worked cooperatively and even disagreed constructively except for Tkguy who ignored several Wikipedia policies including WP:CIVIL. I lost my patience towards him long, long ago for a good reason.

Tkguy has no understanding of Wikipedia policies which led to a post at AN/I which has lengthy yet only a partial list of Tkguy's hostile conduct to users who disagree with him. [97] Crotalus Horridus did no deep digging when he googled "Tkguy." It's actually the second page that shows his activities outside of Wikipedia. I was not sure if I could comment on his activities outside of Wikipedia, but how can I not pretend to see what was posted on the talk page of Asian fetish? I was indeed astonished by his comments outside of Wikipedia.

Tkguy attacks me for making a sandbox. What's wrong with that? Again, Tkguy has no understanding of Wikipedia policies. Not having to follow manual of style or a consensus is the purpose of having a sandbox while I did invite feedback from several editors. Tkguy needs to understand Wikipedia:About the Sandbox. The part of his complaint also revolves around spying or stalking. Looking at "user contributions" of a POV-pusher is not spying or stalking not to mention that he only edits two articles. Editing the only two articles that he happens to edit is not stalking. миражinred (speak, my child...) 21:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs)

User is a manifest SPA.

I placed the incivility under a hat, which I find to be useful in discouraging future incivility. I didn't remove the comments, but neither did Tkguy, although I advised him he should feel free to remove remarks he felt were personal attacks. Eventually he did remove them, and no editor added them back to the talk page. This dispute is therefore moot. No other dispute resolution was attempted besides.

However, if Tkguy continues to edit war on the article once it's unlocked, I will press for RfC and/or community sanction. Cool Hand Luke 23:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs)

As far as I can see Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs · uploads) acted in a responsible manner, as expected of an administrator. The "Tkguy" section of the talk page does not look like a personal attack, though I can see how one would be upset by it — Tkguy is refered to as a single purpose account. Cool Hand Luke simply said:

Yep. SPA. User seems to be promoting a line of original research postulating that Asian American suicides, among other social ills, are caused by the Asian fetish. This is not a forum for original research. Moreover, user liberally accuses other editors of vandalism in support of racism. I encourage this user—and all users—to avoid personal attacks and original research. Cool Hand Luke 21:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's just a warning not to post original research or make personal attacks. He also acted sensibly on most other sections of the talk page.--Phoenix-wiki 15:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by partially involved Crossmr (talk · contribs)

I don't have much to add, but feel this link is relevant to the issue here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive347#User:Tkguy_at_Asian_fetish.--Crossmr (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

• Decline. I see nothing here at this stage that cannot be addressed by appropriate involvement of administrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. The issues here seem clearcut and have not reached the complexity which would be required for arbitration. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback consensus

Initiated by Doc^g at 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears Jimbo has referred this to ArbCom as well. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Everyone here

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• ANI
• Wikipedia talk:Non-administrator rollback
• Requests for rollback

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• extended discussion in AN
• AN again
• Discussion on Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback (various threads)
• Discussion on Wikipedia talk:Non-administrator rollback (various threads)

Statement by Doc

Non admin rollback is a perenial debate, for which there is a long-standing failure to gain an community consensus. A poll Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges/Poll was held over many months from January 2006, and having closed at 216 support to 108 oppose (exactly 2:1) was deemed to be without consensus. Another poll Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback/Poll was opened by proponents of the idea on December 30th 2007. This poll (advertised on AN and ANI and Central discussions) was marked as due to close on January 6th. I discover it on January 4th - and with 48 hours to run - it had only attracted 60 votes, and was deemed to be "succeeding" with c. 49/11. Concerned over the propriety of a short snap poll over the holidays, I tried to persuade the initiators to extend it for a few weeks, when they refused, I took a lot of flack for "spamming" the official mailing list with my concerns. After that it was added to the site notices. The poll, however, was closed on 7/8th January (8 days) with 304 support and 151 oppose (exactly the same % as 2006 - nothing had moved).

Following the second poll, the feature was implemented by a developer on 9 January 2008 as noted at Template:Bug. - Since then, a new process Wikipedia:Requests for rollback has been initiated - and rollback widely granted. I understood that developers were only to turn on functions for wikimedia communities where there was a settled local consensus. As can be seen from the bug report, Ryan Postlethwaite presented 67% as representing an en.wp "consensus" and a dev accepted this (perhaps there were other conversations). Although consensus is more than numbers, this was the same non-consenus ration as have been stable for two years, and we don't even promote admins on 66% never mind begin a whole new policy and process - so how it can be presented and accepted as local consensus is beyond me. Every precedent has required more support that this. And the result is heated debate and a general feeling of community consensus having been manipulated by people determined to get their way.

Rollback is in itself no big deal. However, giving the power to 1400 admins to giveth and taketh away, gives alarming potential for disputes drama and the growth of process, rules and instruction creep. we have seen enough of all of these in 25 hours. Thus this impacts hugely on the project and is a potential sink hole for admin time. So we must not do this lightly on six day polls and a developer's bad judgement.

As this has been done outside of the community's process, there is no remedy other than arbcom or the WMF board. Arbcom does not make policy. The community does that. But the community cannot agree, at this point, whether there is a consensus for this new policy or not. Arbcom's role is to be a mediator where the community cannot agree. Arbcom should NOT decide whether rollback is bad or good. But I am asking them, however, to arbitrate the community dispute as to whether there exists a settled consensus.

Jimbo has already indicated that arbcom do have a roll here: [98] "ArbCom will discuss and vote on the result, and make a formal request to the Wikimedia Foundation about whether it should be turned on or not, and to establish the policy.... ArbCom will of course most likely follow the vote of the community, but I will not require them to do so. They should serve as a "check and balance" in the event something strange happens here, or in case the discussion shows a way forward that the vote itself does not accurately represent.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)" [reply]

I asking Arbcom to do something less than Jimbo has done. I am asking them merely to arbitrate the dispute as to whether consensus exists.

--Doc^g 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Addition

Question Two arbs are saying that the community should decide this. However, the community DID. We polled (badly and manipulatively) and reached no consensus = status quo remains. A developed overrode our conventions and declared this to be mandate to proceed. What is the redress if not arbcom? How is the community to address this when a large chunk are content that they've got their way - and there cannot be a consensus to reverse it? Do I personally go and lobby a developer to turn it off? I really cannot see how we move forward from here. Discussion will end with the same lack of consensus and the normal lack of consensus option (=do nothing) has been overridden.--Doc^g 09:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw from this case. The Christmas holiday coup d'etat has been unprecedentely successful in forcing through a major change without consensus. All credit to them - I'd probably have tried the same if I'd wanted something as badly and had as little chance of getting legitimate agreement. But, now we effectively have a new status-quo in this crazy process - and I predict we'll rue the day. However, that's what we've got, and the chances of the community obtaining a *genuine* consensus, which could change this status-quo, are as nil as they always have been. Jimbo's haverings about the WMF board and a new poll make no sense to me, and arbcom are not going to involve themselves in any difficult substantive issues. Maybe they will wag a finger at Ryan Postlewaith at al (a nice, manageable, user conduct issue for them) but what good would that do? Consensus lost here, and that's sad. But, as the victors have repeatedly and rightly implied, the rest of us had best shut up and get over it.--Doc^g 14:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carcharoth

From what I saw of what happened here, this was largely a poorly-timed (over Christmas) and poorly-planned (no exit strategy) poll. My feeling is that the breakdown in communication occurred when Ryan posted in the bugzilla thread that he personally saw consensus and asked the developers to have a look and judge for themselves ("The poll has now closed with 304 supports and around 150 opposes. I'd say that's consensus, but please take a look."). It seems that the developer then switched the feature on for en-wiki (I believe the feature was already implemented globally with a default 'off' setting and was actually ready to go, unlike last time). However, a little bit of digging and reading around the talk pages would have shown that things were not yet clear. But judging a borderline or otherwise uncertain consensus should not be the role of developers. What should have happened instead was for uninvolved en-wiki bureaucrats to be asked to judge the consensus, and for the result of that judgment to be posted at the bugzilla thread. Ideally, the bureaucrats would have been asked to 'clerk' the poll beforehand, so they could remain uninvolved if needed. I will add that the en-wiki community (writing the English-language encyclopedia) and the community of developers (writing the software) and sysadmins (integrating the software changes) need to make clearer to each other how they communicate on issues like this. Carcharoth (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to Gurch (and Nick and Acalamari and anyone else worrying that this is about shutting the process down): The title of the request specifically mentions consensus. I agree with you that for better or for worse we have non-admin rollback, and that it is bedding in quite well, and there is no need to talk about disabling or suspending it. The point here is to find out what should have happened in order to settle the consensus issue, and learn lessons for next time a change like this is proposed (eg. how to improve communications). Carcharoth (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to Sean William: Thanks for pointing out Ned Scott's draft RfArb. The latest version before he blanked it is here. I agree with what Ned has said concerning issues of user behaviour, and would encourage him to post the statement he was drafting. Carcharoth (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: Other examples of technical processes being implemented, with and without drama. The "Table" namespace. The New Pages patrolled feature. Anonymous page creation disabled (and the nearly-implemented proposal to switch it back on).

Statement by Ultraexactzz

I agree that the questions raised by Doc are significant, and worthy of the Committee's consideration. Where is consensus? Is it a certain percentage? Or, to borrow a metaphor, is it whoever shouts the loudest? I know that every technical change is not approved, or even discussed, by the community - but when are the developers bound to seek (and follow) consensus, and how are their decisions reviewed if they go against consensus? I would argue that, in this case, the Arbcom is the appropriate venue.

I also note for the record that the admins who put together and operate the process at Requests for Rollback have made what appears to be a good faith effort to implement a process for which there was some disagreement. The approval of any number of editors (myself included) to receive rollback tools isn't, in my view, an attempt to short-circuit consensus, but rather an attempt to fairly and reasonably implement a new process. The issues of this case should be limited to the events surrounding the activation of the developer's change, including the process for determining consensus beforehand, and whether such consensus existed (or exists).

-- UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gurch

Just when I thought discussion was dying down, Jimbo decided to intervene and now this came up. There is very definitely a community consensus to grant rollback in some form or other, all that is being debated is the workings of the process. The current process is not perfect, of course, but no process is. I think the amount that was achieved in 24 hours was remarkable, especically given that it was achieved despite the bickering of many contributors who did not like the way in which it was implemented. Sure, it could have been introduced a lot more smoothly. But we've got this far... can we please not screw up now? Requests for rollback have already died down after an initial surge. There are already long-establised rules governing the use of rollback that can simply be carried over from administrators; the only thing to settle is the process itself. We as a community can tweak and get consensus for the working of the process in good time on our own, we do not need a committee to babysit us. If the Arbitration Committee decided now to disbale use of the rollback tool, that would in all probablilty be the last time any non-administrator ever saw it. For the good of the project, this really, really isn't a good idea – Gurch 01:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Marlith

The implementation of rollback hit us without anyone knowing about it. I also agree with Gurch on thsi topic. Just as we finished the initial voting we went forth to a short period of discussion about the definition of consensus. Hours later, we discover that it was implemented quite quietly. The problem that caused so much controversy is the vague definition of consensus. Could it be the dictionary definition? Does it mean that one side has more logical and convinicing arguements like this? This controversy has escalated to the point where only the ArbCom can decide. Personally, I believe that RfR should be tweaked into an RfA like process instead of the RFPP like process we have now to prevent users from misusing the tool. Or if we have intelligent discussion the community can come to an agreement. Although rollback allows users to be bitey, I would like to remember that rollback can be taken away from disruptive users and it is also a very good anti vandalisim tool. Also I have seen much bad faith in the arguments against rollback, the problems lie with the users, not with the proposals or everyone who has rollback. Thank you. Marlith ^T/C 01:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A modest proposal by Durova

This just isn't worth the fuss. I respectfully request that the developer who implemented this un-implement it temporarily while the community decides whether/what type of implementation is appropriate, that ArbCom dismiss this case, and that people put their energies into something useful. Durova^Charge! 02:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Halo

I agree with Carcharoth - it was largely a breakdown of communication between the en-Wiki process and the developers. I, for one, firmly believe there wasn't consensus for this change.

In future, there needs to be a better way to decide whether a policy has passed or not, avoiding replying on developer discretion wherever possible simply to make life easier for everyone - the suggestion by Jimbo Wales on Wikipedia:AN#Arbcom to let the ArbCom have the final decision on these sorts of polls and communicate this to developers seems like the best idea going forward. A way of preventing ambiguity over poll results and consensus should be the most important thing to come out of this process - if nothing else than to prevent discouraging developers from making active changes to Wikipedia lest they be controversial, and to prevent future controversial decisions.

However, I can't help but think Ryan Postlethwaite, the original author of WP:RFR, did his very best to muddy the waters and tried to cause as much confusion as possible to push through the policy by implying that there was consensus on Bugzilla bug 12534 while not showing his conflict of interest (or that his opinions on consensus differ from many) and advertising on MediaWiki:watchlist-details prematurely.

Rolling out WP:RFR at the first possible time irrespective of the fact that the policy wasn't ready causing confusion with policy made up on the spot was a bad idea. I believe that these sorts of actions should be strongly discouraged in future, and changes such as this should be done in a more considered manner - even if something is technically possible and enabled that doesn't mean it should be rushed into. -Halo (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick

I welcome and strongly support the comments made by Gurch. I would also ask that the Arbitration Committee clarify their powers in relation to technical features. Whilst not strictly relevant, I note that some Arbitrators have been appointed following the recent elections with a level of support comparable to the level of support for the Rollback proposal (both in terms of votes and in terms of percentages). Arbitrators with such a level of support enjoy a clear mandate, and I believe this should also be the case with the Rollback proposal, as such, I cannot do anything but ask the Arbitration Committee to reject the full case, permit users to be given the Rollback permission and direct the community to create suitable policy to govern the process as it has been implemented. Nick (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MBK004

I received rollback through the process on 10 January. I echo the concerns of Gurch, and urge that a consensus be determined between the administrators granting rollback as suggested by Nick. Regardless, of what is decided, my main concern is what is to happen to the editors who have received rollback if the process is halted. I agree that the process is flawed, and have no doubts that many disagree with how the process was implemented in the first place. I commend the admins who have tried to work in good faith to implement a process to effectively judge if an editor should be given this tool. If the decision is made to stop this process of granting rollback to non-administrators, I would advocate that the editors who already have it (approximately 350+), be allowed to keep the tool, with the knowledge that their actions would be closely monitored, in order to judge if the concerns of the community in the aforementioned polls to determine community consensus have merit or not. This is because the unannounced (to those who have not kept up with the recent events following this process) removal of the tool to the 350+ users with it screams of assuming bad faith in the editors who have rollback. - -MBK₀₀₄ 02:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alexfusco5

I was an original opposer of this proposal before it was implemented. Now that I have seen how he process is operating my concerns have been addressed. Many of the oppose votes (my included) opposed because of unneeded bureaucracy or dislike of the process. I believe that a new policy needs to be made behind the new feature to assure that the policy has consensus. As was seen by the poll many people supported the idea but opposed the way it worked (i.e. should be carried out bureaucrats, twinkle does the same thing etc.). The solution would probably be to draft a new rollback policy that has consensus from the community (unless the policy was supposed to be implemented by majority) Alexfusco⁵ 02:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Mercury

Everything Gurch said above.

Statement by Sean William

This situation was handled poorly on every level. Once the developers activated the feature, the process immediately began - causing utter chaos. I tried to protect the page so that some discussion could be had, but it was only protected for about 40 minutes when John Reaves unprotected it as "not needed". I feel that it absolutely was needed, and still is. The parties list could be narrowed down easily to a few key players; Ned Scott already tried to do it in a sandbox of his (User:Ned Scott/sandbox4, old revision). Sean William @ 02:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Acalamari

I also agree with what Gurch said. As one of the most frequent participants at requests for rollback, I can say that everything has been going fine there, and problems, if/when they have arisen at the place, have been discussed and sorted out. I don't see any reason to close the process down, and I don't see what an arbitration case will achieve apart from waste a load of time for many people. Acalamari 02:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cobi

I have to echo Gurch, Nick, and MBK004 as well. Furthermore, ClueBot has seen a major performance boost since it was granted rollback. Regardless of the outcome of this request for arbitration, my main concern is those who have received rollback. Especially the anti-vandal bots, because all rollback is for the bots is a more efficient way to do the exact same thing that they do already. I have not seen any misuse of rollback since it has been granted, and to remove it would go clearly against our fundamental principle about assuming good faith. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 02:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ashley Y

From this case I hope to see an improvement of the process by which technical changes are made to the site. I note, for instance, that WP:PWD "passed" by 51 to 22, smaller numbers and proportionally less discussion no doubt due to not being linked on watchlists, yet was not implemented.

People get upset not because things don't happen to go their way, but when they feel the generally agreed rules and customs of the site are not being applied fairly. Upsetting people tends to damage the encyclopedia, but a clear process can mitigate that. —Ashley Y 02:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Ashley Y

Regarding WP:PWD, it was not implemented due to lack of discussion. The rollback proposal, on the other hand has had tons of it. Majorly (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lawrence Cohen

Oh, enough already: Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Vote. Lawrence Cohen 03:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update Please accept this case. An extreme minority has taken to supercede consensus now even on the vote, and have edit warred it out of Wikipedia, primarily administrators. Take this case, please. Please review: this and reconsider. This situation is hopeless, if some ultra minority of admins is going to drive an edit war to even take away the community's voice to decide such things like this, and kill an in-process vote that Jimbo called for. Lawrence Cohen 14:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

I’m not sure really what to say about this, we had what many could consider an RfC on the subject, a proposal and then a vote on the proposal which two thirds of the community said they wanted. What was my role in this? Well, I created the proposal which was discussed, then I created a final proposal which was put to a community vote. After around 450 people had voted on this, someone closed the poll citing discussion (I had nothing to do with the closure of the poll, I unwatchlisted it soon after it was created and I think it was closed by someone who opposed the proposal). A couple of days later, Corvus cornix cited a bug request that had been put forward by an uninvolved party (Note: This was visible to all parties on the talk page of the poll) and I simply responded on the bug, citing that I personally thought there was consensus but asked the developers to take a look at the poll). I had previously created Wikipedia:Requests for rollback and userfied it just in case it was implemented. I was as shocked as anyone when I saw it had been moved out of my userspace and the first request was already up. I think it would have been better for us to have had a few days (at least) warning before implementation so we could have got our policy and procedures up to scratch to stop any resulting mess happening, but this didn’t happen. I hindsight, I think everyones done a fantastic job developing this into a non bureaucratic procedure as we’ve worked in real time to sort out some real problems we had when it first started last night. As with all procedures here, they need time to develop, and I really can’t see how there’ve been any major problems with it so far. This was in no way ideal, we should have had warning, but we’ve made the best of a bad situation, and what the majority of the community wanted. Over the next few weeks I expect us to develop further and unless there’s problems (which no-one has yet been able to cite), I can’t see any real need to change things. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr.Z-man

I too agree with what Gurch says. At this point, most of the drama seems to just be for the sake of drama. Instead of continuing to argue about whether there was a consensus that the poll had a consensus, we should evaluate what has already been done. Is rollback being misused by non-admins on a significant scale (or at all)? Is the lack of a fully agreed upon system actually causing problems (other than people complaining about the lack of a process)? I've been mostly avoiding the discussion on the admins' noticeboard, but have instead been focusing on the discussion and process at WP:RFR and WT:RFR. For all the shouting and panicking elsewhere about how not having a pre-existing policy would be and is a disaster, it seems to be running fairly smoothly. There have been bumps, but for a totally new system, that is to be expected and work at the RFR talk page based on the experiences of people taking part in and observing the actual process is producing helpful results and minimal drama. Would having a fully agreed upon process before this was implemented have helped? Probably. Is it necessary? No. For one, except for important content policies, rules are supposed to be descriptive. How do we describe something that doesn't exist? Was is a total disaster? No, even without rules, people used (*gasp*) common sense and started to form rules based on how things were working. Even if we created rules before it started, unless we got really lucky, we probably would have ended up rewriting most of them once the process started. I'm reminded of when patrolled edits for Special:Newpages was activated (not quite as significant a change, but still quite noticeable). There was minimal on-wiki discussion beforehand, no RFC, no proposal, no straw poll, just a short discussion on the Village Pump. When it was turned on, I drafted up a quick set of rules based on my thoughts and some previous discussion (both public and off-wiki), people agreed with most, asked questions and commented on the talk page, and after a few bumps at the start (some due to it being misconfigured) it proceeded with minimal drama. Even without rules written beforehand and pages of discussion, it went quite well. I imagine that given a few days to iron out some issues, this will go well also. Mr.Z-man 03:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Justin

I want to emphasize a major point here. There are mixed opinions about whether or not WP:RFR is working, and those above me have commented on the various good and bad points. That being said, the real question here is not whether the tool is effective, or if the feature is a good or bad, but whether or not the implementation was made with consensus. I strongly disagree with User:Cobi that removing this tool is a violation of WP:AGF, if it's found that enabling the feature was without consensus in the first place. At this juncture, I believe full protecting WP:RFR and allowing a true consensus to form is the appropriate course of action. I see no reason to remove access to the tool, for those already granted access, unless the community decides to remove it entirely from non-admins (which I sincerely doubt will happen). As an aside, while I did vote in Lawrence Cohen's poll above, I don't think a "straight poll" is going to be any less contentious than the present situation. Justin ^chat 03:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Apparently a suggestion by the board chair, was enough for involved admins to make a final decision. This rather contentious debate exemplifies everything that is wrong with Wikipedia, and ArbCom's refusal illustrates why it won't get fixed. Justin ^chat 02:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:TenOfAllTrades

The poll has a number of troubling aspects. Most have been enumerated above, so I will sketch them only briefly here.

• The poll was open for a very short period of time; I count less than nine days from first to last vote.
• The proposal on which people were voting changed substantially over the course of the voting period: [99].
• Even if 67% is taken to be a consensus that non-admin rollback ought to be made available, there appear to be wildly disparate opinions on when and to whom rollback should be granted.

For comparison, I remind the Committee of the last major policy that depended on a vote to assess consensus: the three-revert rule. In that case there was as widely publicized poll, a clear question, and a full two weeks of voting: Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement. The 3RR was passed with the support of 85% of the participants in the vote.

Obviously the cat is out of the bag. The configuration that allows admins to grant and revoke rollback has gone live. There's no point to antagonizing the developers by asking them to pull the plug; it's not their fault that we've done a poor job of keeping our house in order. Indeed, I suspect that it will be beneficial to the project to have more (responsible) people with access to rollback. What might be a good idea – and what is a matter that I would very much like to see the Committee consider – is a temporary injunction.

I strongly urge the ArbCom to declare a moratorium on granting rollback bits until the enwiki community can develop something like a stable policy on when and to whom rollback is granted. In the last days, I've seen a great deal of argument and very little agreement on a number of issues.

• Should rollback be granted via private email requests, or only through a public process page?
• How long should the community be allowed to consider or comment on a public request? (Times from fifteen minutes to twenty-four hours have been proposed; rollback requests have been granted within four minutes of their appearance on WP:RFR.)
• Who decides if an editor should have rollback? I've seen one admin refuse a request, only to be immediately overruled by another without any comment or discussion.
• How is rollback withdrawn?
• How are requests logged? Should only successful/unsuccessful requests be recorded? If private requests are permitted, should they be logged to prevent 'admin shopping'?

Right now the de facto policy is being decided not through consensus but by whichever admins decide to deliberate for the shortest amount of time and act with the least prior discussion. Presented with a fait accompli, there is a natural reluctance on the part of dissenting editors to risk the perception of wheel warring. This is not a good way to develop policy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Husond

I was very surprised to witness the blitzkrieg implementation of the non-admin rollback proposal. I'm really not convinced that there was a consensus for this change in the first place (it was way too borderline, and one should bear in mind that the support camp naturally attracted many users who, instead of pondering the pros and cons, simply supported because of their own benefit of getting the rollback tool). Anyway, even if we are to determine the outcome as consensual, I think that the amount of opposition should at least justify a slow and very well discussed implementation of non-admin rollback. Which just didn't happen. It was a disappointing process and bad omen for further proposals. Húsönd 04:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KnowledgeOfSelf

While ArbCom does not make policy, and this RfAb is out of the realm of what ArbCom normally handles, I do believe this is a special case that requires a firm adjudicature from some type of authority. It is very unlikely that true consensus could be reached on this issue without a firm conclusion from such an entity as ArbCom. With that being said, the issue here is not Special:Userrights, it is not the request page either. The issue is the blatant disregard of established practice and community understanding and application of consensus.

Policy or guideline pages should never be implemented in such a scant time period. The fact that a dev enabled this feature does not mean that it was accepted by the community. When I first became aware that requests for rollback were being given I stated, "This sets a substandard precedent, and completely undermines established practice. Consensus is not counting the votes, it is not 2-1, and it is not this."

The real grievance here is the disregard shown to community consensus. A prime example is the issuing of rollback to anti-vandal bots, based on this discussion which lasted just a couple days. Consensus can change, but not in 2 days or 2 weeks for a feature that can cause a ripple effect of this magnitude. I urge ArbCom to accept this case, and be a facilitator of calmness and reason to this very serious issue. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:B

This is silly. Around 300 people have requested rollback in the time since it went live. Presumably they like the idea of it. 2/3 of the community approved the policy in this form. Of the 1/3 that didn't like it, many of the objections were either flat out wrong (e.g. worrying about admins taking rollback away from each other) or were objections that would also apply to tools like WP:TWINKLE (in other words, no new problems). If someone has a better implementation than the current system, then propose it, but there is nothing good that can come from arbcom reviewing this. --B (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Mbisanz

Well it seems that most if not all of the points of this discussion have been covered. The one thing I'd like to add, is that I personally disagree with the concept of developers judging consensus of userights issues. Meta says "This position [Steward] was created to dissociate rights management from software development [Developer]." While developers must, by nature, flick the switch, a steward or at least a crat should have been the judge of consensus to notify the developers. Thats not to say that any users here acted in bad faith or improperly (or even that the decision to turn it on was wrong), just that in order to avoid the possible appearance of impropriety on anyone's part, a steward or a crat should have made the call publically on the vote (like an RfA or AfD) and then notified the developers, however that is normally done. MBisanz ^talk 06:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also note that while all parties who contributed to the original discussion are listed as parties, this RfArb has only been mentioned on AN/I and the 2 Rollback related pages. If accepted I'd strongly urge a bot-notification of everyone who signed the discussion/vote page. MBisanz ^talk 16:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EconomicsGuy

I understand that this was initiated based on Jimbo's comments about this so no blame to the initiator but Jimbo is way off here. We don't need ArbCom or even Jimbo for that matter to figure this out. What we need is for everyone to stop seeing ghosts and get back to writing the encyclopedia. It's rollback - it's not delete or block. This love of process is a gigantic waste of time and needs to end now. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Okay I'm getting more worried now. Given how this is going and the fact that the only thing we can agree on is an image of a white cat on the polling page I think we may have to ask ArbCom to act as mediators. Not policy makers, but mediators because clearly we are incapable of doing this ourselves. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Also, may I just point out to Flonight who accepted this that the current list of involved parties per this request includes some 450 people not counting those who have become involved since? I think the best solution here would be for a group of arbitrators to act as neutral mediators. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Apparently pointless now that there is a ban of at least 3 months on voting about this. I don't know where that was decided but apparently it was. So much for transparency. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ned Scott

This might sound odd coming from me, since about 24 hours ago I was drafting a proposal for a case, but I'm not sure about taking this to arbcom anymore. Maybe yes, maybe no, but I've been thinking a lot about this in the last day.

It's not a big deal in that it's not life or death, but people need to stop being mean to people who were upset by this. Same goes the other way around, when it applies. It's not ok for people to label such editors as being disruptive, because they have a concern, because they want to talk about it. We should avoid needless drama, but that does not mean rejecting anything that might generate some drama as a byproduct.

The situation should have been dealt with better. We should have waited before promoting users. It didn't happen, and for what it's worth, the world did not explode. Still, we need a way of stopping such stampedes in the future. A lot of people thought it was ok to just jump right on in, and there was no way for someone to put it on hold without being brushed off as being "disruptive".

Still, the way everyone responded, on both sides, was somewhat.. expected/ reasonable, consideration the situations, and how people normally react to such situations (at least for Wikipedia). But I'm still sorry this turned out to be somewhat of a mess. I'm sorry I got mad and that other people got mad. I'm glad that rollback granting itself have gone fairly smoothly despite all this. I feel bad for some of the things I said and did, and I feel bad that situations like this can put some users at odds with other users. I feel bad that this seems unfair to everyone involved in many ways (though there are certain things that could have easily improved the situation).

I find myself agreeing with both Doc glasgow and Ryan Postlethwaite in a lot of what they say on this page. And a lot of other users too. I don't know, and it's almost 5 am and I'm tired. I don't know if I should just walk away from this whole issue, or try to help us improve things for the next time we have a similar issue. I don't even know if I would be of any help, but I'd like to be of some help if I can.

I like just about all of you on this project. I really like our project and I really like working with everyone. Valid concerns or not, for when I was a bonehead, I hope people can forgive me, and I hope I can remember to do the same for others. -- Ned Scott 12:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by Ned Scott

Yesterday when I posted my view I went directly to the request for arb page, fell asleep, woke back up, finished what I was writing, and went back to sleep. It's now been another 15 hours since then, and I'm still trying to fully catch up with everything that has happened in the last 40 hours.

I wish there was a way to be mad-at/address something without having it become a big commotion, but that's just kind of the nature of Wikipedia. In all honesty, I can't find it in me to be really upset about this anymore. It's not that I should or shouldn't be, but just.. I have a lot of stuff to do, both in real life and on wiki.

The most embarrassing part of this is my own misconception on the rollback feature. I had played a hand in this issue getting all hyped up, and I made an extreme rookie mistake. Had I understood rollback correctly, I would have actually supported it. That's not to say that I wouldn't have had any objections to the resulting situation, but.. lets just say I want to crawl into a little hole. When I realized that my main concern wasn't even related, I blanked my arbcom draft, cursing my apparent addiction to Wikipedia, which had prevented me from watching many awesome giant robot fights that I had planned to view on that day. Sure, I had only myself to blame, but the nature of these things, and how we normally deal with them on Wikipedia puts a lot of us at a disadvantage (in comparison to real-life situations/disputes).

When I first opposed the proposal I figured that it would still pass, and that if it really was a bad idea that we'd find out, and would be able to deal with it at that time. I understand that this has made a second issue, unrelated to the feature itself, but even about that I can't say that I'm that concerned. I think we'll be able to handle it, but it's hard, by the very nature of Wikipedia, to do so in a way that doesn't put us at ends with each other.

We should be more worried about that than the disputes themselves.

We need to figure out how to prevent misconceptions, ways to aid proper perspective, and ways to do this when we're dealing with large groups of people making the decision, using a text based method of communication, where we can shoot first and ask questions later, and where our instincts often betray us. Wikipedia's community is at a sort of critical mass (for a lack of better words), and this is evidence of that. -- Ned Scott 03:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hiding

There are issues here that need to be examined. WP:CONSENSUS is a fundamental policy and should not be disregarded. When a consensus is disputed that dispute should be settled through dispute resolution, not ignoring the dispute. More than that, there is also a strong statement of principle by Jimmy that Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We need to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the community, as ultimately determined by me, in full consultation with the community consensus. Did we have a full consultation? Were all issues aired properly? Was dispute resolution followed? Was WP:CONSENSUS, the most fundamental resolution policy, followed? Hiding T 12:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Withdrawn per statement to that effect from Anthere. Hiding T 22:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Slakr

This is my first arb post ever, so please excuse me if it's too lengthy/not addressing the right things/etc, as I normally avoid these kinds of things. :P

I think there are several issues in play here:

• This is a permanent change — I think the pivotal issue here is the fact that we're deciding on something that is going to be a de facto permanent change, but it's been treated with wild disrespect and incorrect protocol for a serious policy change. Sure, we can say that “oh, we can just open another vote to have it removed,” but practically-speaking, even if there was wide abuse, there won't be a snowball's chance in hell of prying +rollbacker from the public's cold, dead hands.

• +rollbacker isn't and won't be easy to remove in cases of abuse — One of the original arguments for adding it in the first place was that it would be easy to remove if it were to be abused. We've already seen that, in only the first few days of the ability being added and granted, people have allegedly abused it. But, when it comes to removing said permission, there tends to be strong favor toward readding it quickly. Whether that will be the case in the future is uncertain, but this doesn't particularly bode well for occurring within only a couple of days of the permission being live. But, because it's a logged permissions change, it it certain to draw the wrath of those involved should they perceive injustice in any form; and, it goes without saying that any negative permissions entries, including +rollbacker, will be a scarlet letter in RfA and other issues of character.

• There have been very bizarre, confusing, atypical, and overall strange occurrences/incidents during the discussion and !voting processes — particularly:
  • Blanking votes here and here is troubling. People who would otherwise think they have casted their vote may not know it/they got wiped away until it's too late. This is extremely troubling, and I don't believe that User:Random832 meant anything by it, but in any vote where that happens, I believe that the poll should immediately closed, the issue dropped, and then reopened a couple weeks later once everyone is back on the same page.
  • Non-neutral images in the header as of this revision is also troubling. There are reasons there aren't pictures strewn about polling booths, and psychological priming has a lot to do with it. Also, notice the caption: “Do you already has rollback?” Which, in my opinion, directly prompts action resembling rally-like behavior.
  • Tacking on bots to a discussion about users and the subsequent hard-closing discussion after only 3 days of being active with atypical reasoning “I'm closing this, because it's already been acted on” ??? I could be wrong, but someone being BOLD in giving bots +rollbacker does not constitute consensus— especially after only 3 days of discussion (presumably because someone assumed it was a vote, which, in that particular case should be highly frowned upon because it involves technical issues that actually do need discussion).
  • A developer ticket being opened unilaterally before consensus was established to enable non-admin rollback. Judging by precedent of Wikipedia:Per-article blocking, if even 84% percent !vote support isn't accepted as clear consensus, then a figure of, around 68% definitely shouldn't be either.
  • During the discussion and straw poll, this and prior revisions had unsourced, OR, opinionated rebuttals to opposition placed well before the poll itself in a highly visible location. As a result, it is likely that people who came to the discussion with opposition were dissuaded from voicing and/or agreeing with fellow opposers, while those who arrived to support were merely reinforced in their support. Granted, this is speculation on my part, but it wouldn't be fair to do the same thing in a polling booth during an election, so I wouldn't expect it to be done here.
  • Inadvertent canvassing using Template:Watchlist — I say inadvertent, because posting a watchlist message to registered users is an issue of conflict of interest, much like posting a rally to a non-notable forum up for deletion is also a conflict of interest. My reasoning here is that there is a fundamental net gain from any editor supporting the ability to receive +rollback who isn't an admin already. As a result, people who wouldn't even be interested in policy changes in the first place or even know what rollback is are suddenly called to action, thereby artificially inflating the vote count, stimulating a false dichotomy, and reaffirming why polls are evil.

In my opinion, I do not believe that any resultant vote will be fully reflective of either consensus or numbers due to the various misconducts in the process itself. I understand that I opposed the change in the first place, but I must affirm that despite that opposition, I'm not here to try to fight against consensus or anything, as might be inferred. Anyone who knows/investigates my history will know I'll always gladly defer to consensus, but in this case, I do not believe that we will have an accurate gauge of consensus for the time being.

I'm not blaming anyone, as they seem to be done in good faith and/or as humor and/or to alleviate confusion; but, in any election/poll, controlling for bias is critical, and when the result might not reflect the true state of things, we need to decide if a recount is necessary, and what preventative measures need to be taken to assure that all procedural elements are lucid.

My opinion? I believe the entire thing should be scrapped'n'archived, waitlisted for about a month, then re-opened for discussion/vote/whatever— only in the interests of letting the dust and confusion settle so that everyone is back on the same page. From there, if a vote, discussion, or whatever is desired, then it should be done and a neutral, uninvolved group should decide what the consensus actually is; because, right now, this whole thing has turned into a zoo— and I'm not using the metaphor lightly. --slakr^\ talk / 14:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GlassCobra

Like Slakr above me, I have been involved with ArbCom only marginally before now; please forgive me if I’m off-topic. However, I feel too strongly about this to sit on the sidelines.

I am disappointed. So far, two three of our newly elected arbs have decided to reject this case to send it back to the community, when clearly the community is incapable of deciding on its own in this matter; as EconomicsGuy has said, the only thing we can seem to agree on is having a picture of a cat on the vote page, as the vote itself has been blanked several times, and now protected before I could vote. The Arbitration Committee is not suited to the job of deciding on whether policy changes should be implemented; however, in this case, the policy change was implemented without consensus from the community. Even Jimbo seems to want to pawn this off onto someone else. I confess being a little disappointed in Doc glasgow, whose previous statement, before he struck it out, seemed to be along the same lines as my thoughts here. This is not something to merely roll over and take.

To be blunt: this is unacceptable. As much respect as I have for Ryan Postlethwaite, he seems to have some serious misguidings about what exactly consensus is. Consensus is not about straight numbers, not about who gets the most votes, and it certainly is not "who shouts the loudest." This is the premise by which he has declared victory, so to speak, and he is wrong. Ned Scott made some good points in his statement a few above mine; not only were the self-proclaimed "winners" of the rollback proposal being arrogant and rude, they were completely and utterly dismissive of anyone attempting to voice opposition, even as the feature was being implemented; see B’s post above as an example. From the very beginning, this proposal has had problems. As we all know, this is not the first time that non-admin rollback has been discussed. It was clear from the previous discussion that this was not something that could be simply voted on, and especially not in the six days that the proposal went before the proponents declared victory. As some will know, there’s been quite an uproar on the mailing list. So not only was there no consensus for this feature, there was absolutely no discussion on how it should be managed. I urge everyone to go and look at WT:RFR right now and witness the chaos currently underway; everyone voicing their opinions as to how people should be granted rollback, and we have indeed seen the beginnings of some wheel warring over permissions, as predicted. In the meantime, while the bickering continues, editors are being granted this tool left and right, with unknown ramifications. Like TenOfAllTrades and Durova, I strongly urge the ArbCom to declare a moratorium on granting this privilege until the community can develop a stable policy on when and to whom rollback is granted.

I don’t really feel that this proposal is all that much of a good one. If people like Marlith feel that this should be more like an RfA, why not just send these candidates to RfA? These are obviously good, quality editors, otherwise we wouldn’t be granting them rollback (right?). Perhaps a large influx of candidates will help the RfA process to be less of a big deal, as it has become. God knows we can always use more admins to help out around here. To sum up: like Ned Scott, I respect all of you. Like I said on my RfA back in November, these conflicts are absolutely inherent and unavoidable when such a large number of people come from so many different backgrounds to work on something together. I hope we can all work together to arrive at a solution that best serves the project. GlassCobra 15:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sm8900

Sorry, I don't have any knowledgable details about the very important issue of how the discussion was handled. However, I do agree with all editors above who express any misgivngs about acceptance of and implementation of rollback. who needs it? what does it add, and how does it benefit anyone? but anything with such deep implications for Wikipedia needs to be looked at very, very carefully. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Blue Tie

I don't believe I saw this vote and I cannot help but wonder why this is a big issue. Why do we need to have this tool? Why does it matter if we do have it? But, if the vote was not handled right and consensus not followed then it should be reversed. So in essence I am in agreement with SM8900--Blue Tie (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Injunction

I support the current Arbitrators who are opting to decline a case on this issue, I agree their involvement is premature. I think this is something the community ought to try working out first. However, judging by the discussion on AN/I and the absurd edit warring at Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback/Vote I would like to request an injunction from ArbCom to frame the proceedings.

My idea is an injunction defining where and for how long discussion ought to proceed. It's unusual, true, but it looks like most of the fighting is over the weight of past discussions and allow new discussion to proceed. So I would suggest defining a discussion period of at least one week, to be restricted to one page at or below Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback. Following this, an open poll to last at least two weeks, also located in the same area. I wouldn't suggest any further definition of the discussion or polling, merely state that at the end of that time ArbCom would issue a statement either recognizing a consensus (for or against) or reopening discussions. Also at that time, ArbCom can reevaluate the need for them to referee the discussions further.

I feel an injunction like this would go a long way to calming the current drama, and refocusing energies into something constructive. --InkSplotch (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tariqabjotu

Frivolous. -- tariqabjotu 20:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Grandmasterka

'Frivolous' doesn't begin to describe it. Grandmasterka 08:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

• Decline, and (whether the current view is consensus or not) refer it back to community, to choose an approach to generate (or check) a consensus-based decision on the rollback facility. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed reasons.

Should Arbcom hear it? Setting aside the view of Jimbo Wales (see below), and the question whether the Committee can hear the matter (it can: 1/ policy; 2/ "unusually contentious between admins", 3/ interpersonal dispute, 4/ conduct), there are good general reasons not to. In this case there is a good chance the community will be able to resolve it, itself. Where possible Arbcom should not decide matters over the community's head, but all of us should use the opportunities to better gain understanding of consensus decision-making. This is properly a matter for the community to decide (less controversially?), and Arbcom to then ratify and formally request to the devs as a communal decision. (We may look separately at the mechanics of how it got activated, for future - presumably there should have been formal confirmation or no change?) Arbcom should set a bar for accepting cases. Arbitration policy stipulates that serious consensus building/dispute resolution (as applicable) should have usually been tried first. There's reasons for that, one of which is that ultimately it is more beneficial that the community (ie users in general) makes decisions; Arbcom is not an executive body and should only reluctantly accept a role beyond "last resort for editorial/conduct disputes" (and then only minimally). It is easy to take on new powers, roles and tasks for the best of motives, but my judgement is it would also be for the long term detriment of the community if the Committee moved in the direction of being seen as "solver of all problems". It's too easy for people to become used to passing problems to some perceived authority. The ethos of the Wikipedia approach is that all users in general solve them co-operatively rather than having some group "do it for us". The community is the authority here. If at all possible, the community should be aided to move beyond its own impasses and thereby become more capable. A strong collaborative community is wanted. To underline that the community is indeed capable, a fair number of other cases passed upwards later end up (once the drama is settled) as being addressed communally anyway, proving the community is more than capable and didn't really need arbcom to step in, much of the time (Attack sites NPA edit, WP:SRNC, etc). My personal view. Given further discussion and serious approaches to consensus-seeking (see WP:SRNC for what a 'serious approach' might mean), the only other contentious matter here is trouts all round for the unnecessarily contentiousness. AGF and disagree that hearing such a case would be worth the time taken away from content writing and other activity. Jimbo Wales posted that there should be a community poll and votes, followed by Arbcom discussion with a view to ratifying the outcome and draft policy. He did not say "go to Arbcom immediately". For the reasons above, I'm in agreement with that broad view. Consensus can change. The software facility isn't going anywhere. If we don't agree now, we can re-discuss in 6 months or a year. When the community wishes it, it'll happen. So "no consensus" is not troublesome. There is unlikely to be harm given rediscussion. Approvals are mostly going to be obviously sensible users, rollback abuse is easy to fix and the switch can be removed. Communally consider a moratorium or 24-48 hour approval time for the while. Summary and decline In this case, there is disagreement whether consensus exists. If it does, then a re-test of consensus will affirm it. If not then a retest will be needed to develop consensus. In neither case is the community served by the Committee taking the testing of that view out of the hands of the community at large. Whatever we were to say, there would be loud voices that it was incorrect/improper. This isn't Florida 2000 and Wikipedia works by consensus; my view is if unsure, recheck. Hence decline. If I were to be asked to sum it up, I'd say something like this:- The "non-admin rollback debate" is better discussed in the hands of the community, even if contentious. Consensus sometimes takes work and is gained by overcoming divisions; this is a part of our agreed approach. I feel it's best to return the matter back to the community, and encourage and recommend RFC or some way to genuinely decide what consensus would look like, and how to test it, to supersede the contentious decision-making to date. The community may wish to make a decision concerning granting of rollback in the interim. Although this matter would be within the Committee's purview if it chose, I would strongly decline to take it on, as it is in every way best dealt with as a communal policy decision. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline. FT2 speaks well here. ArbCom can explicitly ratify the community's consensus once that is established; we do so all the time implicitly every time we use a community policy in a case. But I'm not sure why we should, regardless of Jimbo's request; if the decision is a really bad decision, we're not going to be the only ones or the first ones to notice it, and the community's request to the Foundation would hopefully be rejected anyway; and if the decision is a good decision, ArbCom's imprimature is hardly going to make it a better decision (unless there's something odd I don't know about the Foundation's deliberation processes.) If the community likes the idea of ArbCom being some sort of conduit for the rare policy request to the Foundation, I suppose we could do that, but I'm not sure why it should be necessary. I do think the declaration of "consensus" to the developers bears examination, but that's about it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 08:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept to examine user conduct issues related to civility and prematurely declaring consensus in an important issue that effects the entire community. FloNight (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per FT2. In other circumstances a case based on misconduct through misrepresentation of consensus to a developer might have been worth taking but Ryan Postlethwaite's statement makes it clear that there was no misconduct on his part. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obiter dicta

Remarks generally on 'policy' cases and consensus The Arbitration committee is not suited to the job of deciding on whether policy changes should be implemented. It seems to me that, with such a diverse community, it is becoming harder and harder to find consensus for anything other than the most obvious change, and this is why there is a dispute over whether to go ahead, and who judges whether consensus has actually been demonstrated. I incline to the view that it is usually obvious whether a consensus has emerged, so that, if there is a dispute about it, then we almost certainly do not have a consensus. If the community is unhappy at decision-making by consensus, then would a consensus emerge on another way? Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I could accept this case for the sake of providing a foundation for similar potential cases in the future (the way of handeling it). I could reject this case on the basis that the 'process' is already in place and running somehow well, though not in a complete status; which is normal under all the circumstances presented in this case. I could recuse myself since, acting as a regular user, i had suggested here a page's full protection until the process is put in place so to avoid drama, edit warring as well as some other points i mentioned at the RFR's talk page. However, i will be reduced to comment only... I have to point out that the major concern here is not about the new feature itself but about the misunderstanding (good-faith mishandling would be probably the best term to describe the situation) of one of our core policies (i.e. WP:CONSENSUS). To settle this case, i would advise the community to revise the process of how consensus is established (in case it is possible in this case). Some say that the process is 'not' important. No, it is important, otherwise we won't need policies and guidelines, administrators and the ArbCom. There is a need to remind everyone (especially involved admins) that Wikipedia is not an anarchy. Which is not really important is bureaucracy. My personal opinion on the feature itself? None. As pointed out above by some of my fellow arbitrators; the ball is at your [community] camp. In other words, my only BIG concern here is how consensus is interpreted and implemented. I don't blame any user for being 'quick'/'bold' but i'd highly suggest that important decisions about new features/processes should take enough time to decide upon. One of the advantages of that would be saving time while preserving the smooth running of this project. Probably, a simple and quick consultation with the ArbCom, Jimbo and the developpers would have been the best option; not for them to set a standard or a policy but a cool advice on how to manage the process smoothly. But well, we are already here and hope everyone thinks about ways preventing drama before it occurs in the future. Thanks everyone. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Howe (claimant to King of Mann)

Initiated by Kingofmann (talk) at 03:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• kingofmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Initiating Party)
• Hu12 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Jmlk17 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Newguy34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Heraldic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wjhonson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• User_talk:Hu12#Arbitration
• User_talk:Jmlk17#Arbitration
• User_talk:Newguy34#Arbitration
• User_talk:Heraldic#Arbitration
• User_talk:Wjhonson#Arbitration

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

In an attempt to resolve this issue with user Newguy34 and having researched for several hours his edits as well as many others, based on the discussions of several editors on my biography's talk page at Talk:David_Howe_(claimant_to_King_of_Mann) with those attempting to edit to Wikipedia's policies, I do not feel that this issue is easily resolved and it does suggest that there is a group effort to edit to the negative with three of the parties involved as well as other anonymous editors not cited using various USENET groups as a base for orchestrating their efforts. See MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#Unreal_Royal citing user Wjhonson involvement. See Talk:David_Howe_(claimant_to_King_of_Mann)/Archive_2#Celebrity_Friends_and_Royal_Cousins illustrating user Hearldic's participation in a USENET group with a long list of libelous claims against me.

Statement by Kingofmann

I am David Howe, the subject of a Wikipedia Biography.

My initial dispute had to do with the inclusion of a business that I own, that has nothing to do with my notability, on a biography page about me. I requested to Admin Hu12 that he aid me with the removal on his talk page and I cited WP:Blp#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy as the reason why. I eventually deleted the material I felt violated my privacy and stated why on my talk page. User Newguy34 reverted it twice and that is when I requested page protection which was issued.

In response to what seemed like several editors of my biography page, namely Newguy34, Heraldic, Wjhonson and some anonymous users involvement in what seems to be an orchestrated effort to circumvent WP:BLP and present a negative point of view see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#Unreal_Royal, Admin Hu12 on his talk page as well as my biography's talk page stated, "The Media bias is evident in many of the sources, which are attributable and doesn't surprise me since its rooted in forms of Cultural biass. The subject of David Howe is no doubt a Political one to many, however lets keep these biases out of the article space." His request has had no effect.

There are numerous examples on the biography's talk page that show the well telegraphed intent of some editors. Just a few are as follows: December 27, 2007, editor Newguy34 was an advocate for the Wikipedia blacklisted site that has since be revised several times to appear less libelous. Talk:David_Howe_(claimant_to_King_of_Mann)/Archive_2#Celebrity_Friends_and_Royal_Cousins Despite the fact the site isn't a reliable third-party source, addressing another editor's objection to the site he stated, "Your bias appears clear, namely to advance Howe's claims. The author of the website is well respected in genealogy circles and has fully cited and referenced his "opinions."" In fact none of these things are true. The author of the site at the bottom of the first page describes himself, as of January 9, 2008, "an accountant with a keen amateur interest in history and genealogy."

Heraldic and Wjhonson advocating for including libelous blacklisted site see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#unrealroyal.com and then attempting to get it removed from the blacklist See MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#Unreal_Royal. Here it was also revealed that Wjhonson had conspired with the author of the blacklisted site to misuse Wikipedia.

Statement by Wjhonson

When a person has achieved that level of notability that a biography is acceptable, all known facts about the person have an equal chance of being represented. The person, short of pointing out libelous statements, has no special prerogative to exclude certain details. We do not allow this priviledge to Ann Coulter, we do not allow it to Jimmy Wales, we allow it to nobody. It is a red-herring argument that only issues *related* to notability are included. We include a biography based on notability, but once included, each statement does not need to pass notability to be included.

Contrary to the claim that I was involved in "...circumvent[ing] WP:BLP and present[ing] a negative point of view see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#Unreal_Royal...." I submit that all of my edits have quite plainly adhered to WP:BLP. The issue regarding what I perceive as an out-of-process blacklisting is a seperate issue to this article. That the http: //www.unrealroyal.com site was blacklisted as an "attack site", when IMHO it is a "criticism" site of a *public figure* as the King of Man is most clearly. If the King of Man were not himself a public figure, than pointed criticism might be a valid reason for blacklisting a site which criticizes a Wikipedian. The fact that he is a *public figure* puts him outside that purview and he is then fair-game just as surely as George Bush is himself. We do not blacklist sites critical of Bush, and if Bush became a Wikipedian we would not blacklist sites critical of Bush.

Contary to the assertion that "The author of the website is well respected in genealogy circles and has fully cited and referenced his "opinions."" In fact none of these things are true.", I submit that indeed the author is well-respected in genealogy circles, and his fair-and-even criticism of David Howe is fully cited and referenced.

Contary to the assertion that the site is "...libelous..." is my assertion that it in fact engages in well-reasoned and pointed criticism of a public figure.

Contrary to the assertion that "...Wjhonson had conspired with the author of the blacklisted site to misuse Wikipedia." is my assertion that outside Wikipedia, in particular on the soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup, I know the author of the website. My agreeing with his perception that his website was unfairly blacklisted, is not a conspiracy.

I want to add here, that should ArbCom take this case, I sincerely hope they will look at the issue of removing the http:// www.unrealroyal.com site from the blacklist. That is the main reason why I am here, in that, when I saw that message I smelled something bad. We use blacklist for repeated spam postings, not for reasoned, albeit pointed criticism sites. Criticism sites should never be blacklisted, criticism is the basis of a free society. I have already tried to get the site removed using the Blacklist removal request, but a certain admin is blocking the request. If ArbCom does not want to address this here, I'd like to know so I can open a new case for this one issue. Thank you. Wjhonson (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newguy34

I am disappointed that this has reached the ArbCom, and am not sure quite where to start in this unfortunate episode.

First, either Mr. Howe is notable as an individual (for which information such as his primary business venture is relevant) or he is notable for only a single event (namely his claim) and the BLP should be merged with another article. I think a BLP of Mr. Howe is unwarranted. As it relates to WP guidelines, a person is generally notable if a) the person has received significant recognized awards or honors, or b) the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

Further, when a person is associated with only one event, such as an unsubstantiated claim to be related to ancient royalty, consideration should be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted.

And from BLP, if reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy, which is exactly the situation we are facing in this matter. I fail to see how Mr. Howe has achieved any notability other than through this singular claim, and the recent coverage of it. In spite of this, a single user Lazydown has made the majority of edits in support of Mr. Howe's claim, while several editors (including those involved in this arbitration matter) have been consistent in attempting to achieve a balance and neutrality to the article, Lazydown's (and now Howe's) protestations that we are somehow violating NPOV aside. The support for this assertion is contained on the article's talk page and the edit history, and is clear for anyone to read.

As to the information I seek to have included, I believe the inclusion of Mr. Howe's business is relevant information, which is entirely permissible and standard for a BLP. I cited the information from a verifiable, reliable source in accordance with WP policies. The fact that he owns a Glass Doctor franchise in Frederick is a matter of public record and comes from press releases penned by (or authorized by) him. I can not see how it now should be excluded (in its present form) from a biographical article [emphasis added] on claimed grounds of privacy, especially given that it was Mr. Howe who first put this information in the public domain. That Mr. Howe does not like the relevant information he has placed in the public domain being used in a BLP article about himself is insufficient support for its exclusion under privacy concerns.

I attempted to reach consensus with Mr. Howe on the issue (as evidenced on his talk page), but he refuses to discuss the matter further and instead has made a very serious threat of legal action against me (and possibly Wikipedia) see since-blanked entry here. A threat which I take very seriously, and for which I believe he should be admonished and/or otherwise blocked. He has not engaged in dispute resolution. These are indisputable facts, evidenced in various talk pages.

Mr. Howe's assertion that there are several editors involved in "an orchestrated effort to circumvent BLP and present a negative point of view" is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and represents libel. I have never met any of the other editors. My edits have been to retain NPOV after numerous attempts by Lazydown to edit the article in a light most advantageous to Mr. Howe and his claim. Lazydown's edits are typically accompanied by accusations that the editors involved in this arbitration are violating NPOV and other WP policies. I have posted that I believe we are involved in a content dispute. I have attempted to reach consensus on the issue with Lazydown, but he too refuses to discuss the matter. Instead, he posts accusations of a number of us on the talk pages of several administrators, namely Hu12. As such, I believe that Lazydown has not been exhibiting good faith, and am curious why Lazydown is not also a subject of this arbitration action given the inordinate number of edits he has made, and the generally uncivil nature of his numerous edits on talk pages.

I also take strong personal offense to Mr. Howe's implication that the edits of myself and others amount to a "well telegraphed intent" on our part. Again, I have never met the other editors in question, and there is no evidence or factual basis to support this latest assertion. Contrary to Mr. Howe's assertion, I was not an advocate for the now-blacklisted site, but rather sought to understand the objections of Lazydown in that matter. It is important to note that at the time of my posts on the matter, the website in question was not blacklisted. It is also important to note that the criticism of Mr. Howe on the website in question is fully cited and is fully referenced. The occupation of the website author is not relevant to his recognized expertise in the matters the website discusses. I, too, believe the blacklisting of the website is inappropriate and uncalled for.

In summary, I believe this is a very disturbing series of events, filled with red herring arguments, selective adherence to WP policies, inappropriate COI on the part of Howe, and an exercise of bad faith on the part of Howe and user Lazydown. I welcome the consideration of these matters by ArbCom, but as one who believes in the Wikipedia project, I am disappointed that it has come to this. Newguy34 (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the issue at hand, namely this RfAR, it is confusing to me and others as to why Mr. Howe has sought to remove his wife's full name (Pamela Marie Ahearn) from his BLP. I note that several press releases from his office have been written by a one "Marie Ahearn". I am not sure how the two may be related, but I hope this isn't one of the reasons he has cited privacy concerns over including this information in his BLP, as I believe it would represent a conflict of interest. Newguy34 (talk) 05:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Heraldic

Firstly, I should say that I have been on steep learning curve when it comes to the Wikipedia way of doing things. Hopefully I am not repeating any of my earlier procedural errors.

Given the nature of Mr Howe’s claims it is understandable that they would come under considerable scrutiny. I do not think that it is in Wikipedia’s interest to allow the Howe article to be perceived in any way as an endorsement of his claims. To that end I have attempted to provide a balance to the Howe article, clarifying certain broad statements or citing references that reflect that all is not as clear cut as Howe may wish.

With regard to the unrealroyal site; whilst the observations of the author may not meet Wikipedia guidelines (as I now understand), I do believe the factual content is worthy of note. It was for the latter reason I questioned its blacklisting. As for its reinstatement, you will see that I stated that if it was to remain blacklisted it should be for its content not because Wjhonson chose to query the blacklisting. I do not believe that simply disagreeing with an admin is a misuse of Wikipedia.

As part of this arbitration process, I hope that the administrators will also look into the relevant issue of sockpuppets. The dedication shown by users Theisles and Lazydown in the editing the article to reflect Howe’s case and the rigid application of Wiki procedures when it comes to the exclusion of any material that is critical of Howe has given rise to the suspicion that they are either Howe himself or a close associate. The most recent example can be found at Talk:David_Howe_(claimant_to_King_of_Mann)#The_Viscount_Howe_claim .Clarification of their status will go along way to calming things down.

For the record, I am not the owner, author or webmaster of the unrealroyal website. Nor have I had contact with any of the editors here to listed other than through Wikipedia public talk pages.--Heraldic 09:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved DrKiernan

See also: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Theisles, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive118#King David Isle of Man and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#David Howe (claimant to King of Mann).

David, I'm not quite clear on what you're asking for: do you want the article to be deleted or redirected per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about people notable only for one event? DrKiernan (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David himself admits in his statement 3 that the heirs of the earlier Earl of Stanley were the later Earls of Stanley and the Atholls, i.e. the heirs general were the people who inherited the title not David's ancestors. All reference works on the History of the Isle of Man ever published agree that the title of King of Mann was inherited by successive Earls of Stanley until the title was changed to Lord of Mann by one of these same gentlemen. In addition, I'm afraid that Acts of Parliament have greater legal authority than announcements in newspapers. The claim is very obviously bogus. DrKiernan (talk) 08:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note these edits which show that User:Kingofmann has a history of writing articles about pretend countries and titles, and that two of his previous accounts, User:DukeofAntwerp and User:Drewdaily, both contributed to an AfD: [100][101][102][103][104][105] DrKiernan (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Statement by Kingofmann

With all due respect, I am I to understand correctly there is an expectation that I must personally hash this dispute out with each of the other parties involved first in order to try and remedy the problem when I have an urgent need for privacy and protection against a negatively slanted biography before I can bring it to the arbitration committee?

Is this the same expectation of others who are the subjects of a Wikipedia biography?

This process has already been an extreme drain on my time and resources. The editors that I have noted in my original statement share a negative view of me and they have not hidden this in their edits or discussion on my biographies talk page or other related talk pages. I feel that it is part of a larger agenda. I also feel that any extra steps required of me in this process and in this public forum are an invasion of my privacy and is an embarrassment.

Is it really necessary that I, the subject of a Wikipedia biography, be required to do anything more to gain some urgently needed protection from Wikipedia? I really hope that this is not the case.--Kingofmann (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved CarbonLifeForm

This article seems to breach WP:NN, WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V. It is pretentious nonsense. I have put it up for afd here. - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by almost uninvolved Angusmclellan

When this article was mentioned at WP:BLPN, I had a look at it. My reaction was negative. The article was several sorts of WP:COATRACK: a collection of trivial press mentions, a grab-bag of badly sourced criticisms, a smattering of innuendo. Basically this is a WP:BLP1E where the event in question - the subject's bizarre claims - never got any analysis, and thus a non-event so far as an encyclopedia is concerned. There'd have been no need for the negative aspects to be so poorly referenced had anyone in fact bothered to rebut the claims. Whose fault is this? Don't care. How do we fix it? WP:AFD not WP:RFAR. If the arbcom are minded to consider whether WP:NPOV is more or less important that WP:BLP, I can save some time and trouble. Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable. What's could usefully be arbitrated here? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved Lazydown

Today, 1/11/08, User Carbonlifeform, started an articles for deletion page for this BLP Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Howe_(claimant_to_King_of_Mann) and then proceeded to nominate it for deletion. So, I don't know if that quite qualifies as having no involvement. Beyond that, I think his motion was very premature.

Most are recommending it for deletion based on the subject being WP:ONEEVENT or WP:NN. But, all pretenders to a throne as well as all Kings and Queens are notable for only one event and all other things are as a result of their station. HRH Prince Charles of Wales is notable for one thing. I can't imagine deleting his BLP. If this is the grounds for deleting this subjects BLP then it should be applied evenly across the board and not selectively to those lacking popularity and fame.--Lazydown (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Choess

I feel that I should point out that this is not the first time Wikipedia has dealt with self-promotional claims to noble titles. Examining Talk:Earl of Stirling will show a very similar case, wherein an American claimed a British noble title largely by process of assertion. If I recall correctly, the substance of his argument was that according to some procedure in Scottish law, anyone who asserted themselves to be a peer *was* a peer until their claim was disproven, and that with the elimination of writs of summons for the hereditary peers, there was no authority that could disprove his claim, ergo he was the Earl of Stirling. This seems not dissimilar from Howe's claim, which seems to rest largely upon his having published a notice in the London Gazette without drawing explicit contradiction in that venue from the UK government. The difference in Wikipedia outcomes between the soi-disant Earl of Stirling's case and that of Mr. Howe seems to have been that the former rapidly descended to legal threats and was blocked, whereas the latter's case has been advanced by vigorous wikilawyering and invocation of BLP to suppress criticism of his claims.

While I realize that ArbCom will not impose content remedies, it seems to me that the most sensible solution is to redirect Mr. Howe's page to King of Mann and add a line or two noting his claims, the news coverage, and the fact that he has no particular genealogical standing amongst the many descendants of the Stanley Kings of Mann. I think that's in keeping with the overall historical impact of the claims, and it avoids the lengthy sparring over balance of coverage that's characterized the full-fledged article.

With regards to Mr. Howe's concerns, I think the fundamental problem is really, in a sense, that which we ordinarily label original research. He believes, in essence, that he has made new discoveries about the inheritance of the kingship of Mann which entitles him to it and would, naturally, like Wikipedia to reflect it. However, these discoveries are not yet widely accept it and, hence, subject to criticism, which naturally reflects upon him as well. I would respectfully submit that Wikipedia is here to document generally accepted facts and theories, and is a poor venue for trying to determine the truth or untruth of new hypotheses. The criticism he has encountered is the inevitable result of trying to inject a POV not yet widely endorsed into the encyclopedia, and the best way to deflect it is to avoid covering that POV in depth until it has won wider support. Choess (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement 3 from Kingofmann

The presumption above is that I want a Wikipedia page about my claim. I did not create the page and I would not miss it should it meet a speedy demise. I would, however, not have a problem with my biography here if two things could be achieved. First - A general respect for my privacy concerns. Second - An encyclopedic biography that states the five Ws free of extraneous and ill informed attempts to chip away at various aspects of my claim citing dubious sources. I don't feel that these are unreasonable expectations and seem to conform with Wikipedia's policies -- we want the same thing. The fact that a hand full of editors were not interested in improving my biography to meet Wikipedia's standards is why I brought the issue here.

Stepping beyond my privacy concerns and into the realm of the extraneous for just a moment. The editor above made a few statements as if they were fact and comprises the secondary reason for my request for arbitration. The particular statement he insist should be included in any mention of my claim "and the fact that he has no particular genealogical standing amongst the many descendants of the Stanley Kings of Mann.", is an opinion and not a neutral point of view. I have an excellent standing among my aunts and uncles and my first and second cousins, roughly thirty people total I can think of right now and all of whom are Stanley descendants. So I would be very interested to know what reliable source he plans to cite when making that claim.

I would also like to point out that the generally recognized head of the Stanley's is Edward Richard William Stanley, 19th Earl of Derby a descendant of Sir James Stanley the younger brother of my great great...grandmother Lady Jane Stanley and Thomas Stanley III the first of the Stanley Lords of Mann. The 19th Earls line inherited the peerage of Derby in 1736 on the death of the 10th Earl of Derby. The House of Lords in 1736 had to go back some 230 years in order to find a male heir with the surname Stanley to award the peerage to. This is just how narrow the Stanley line was. The title of Lord of Mann and the Island were passed to James Murray, 2nd Duke of Atholl a first cousin to the 10th Earl of Derby obviously in the female line. So this notion that there is a vast sea of descendants bearing the surname of Stanely or otherwise who might have a superior claim than I do is totally baseless and comes from one single and completely unreliable source that has recently been blacklisted by Wikipedia.

There were no facts involved in editor Choess statement regarding my standing among Stanley descendants.--Kingofmann (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement 4 from Kingofmann

To the Arbitration Committee considering this case.

I have just had to go through and remove edits made by user Kigf on the talk page of the biography about me. This person included three or four text boxes at the top of the page of other users saying that I was editing under those user names and then accused me of being a sock puppet. I removed the libelous and inaccurate material from the talk page of the biography but I do not have the time to continue to monitor this biography on a regular basis deleting material intended to discredit me. I would appreciate it if you would provide full protection to the biographies talk page as well. I'm finding the task of monitoring the libelous intent of others to be very exhausting. Thank you.--Kingofmann (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

• Abstain for now. Waiting to see other statements (if any) to see if there is genuinely a basis for us to look at this. If accepted, then to look at the conduct of all parties (without prior assumption) and BLP/NPOV/privacy crossover. Possible thoughts why we might:

  1. There may be important BLP issues here that arise in many articles that don't reach request for arbitration, and which would help to clarify.
  2. Unsure if DR has been tried sufficiently, but BLP disputes are rated "serious" more easily than many other kinds of dispute and if the community genuinely cannot solve, giving direction urgently rather than demanding every step of DR may be reasonable.
  3. BLP is a policy which has great weight in "real life", and NPOV has great weight in articles; both are "non-negotiable" in their requirements. So a perceived conflict may need more clarification. BLP v. NPOV v. privacy is an area that merits experienced eyeballs.

For now though, waiting for (and would like to have presented) further statements, ideally including insight by other experienced users, to help identify if this issue actually needs arbcom to accept, or not. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept. I think both sides of the dispute can better explain the issues involved in this venue than others. The potential conflict between NPOV and BLP needs to be addressed. FloNight (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. The issues arising here that FT2 discusses ought to be considered. --bainer (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept per FloNight. Also, per FT2, probably this case would clarify in depth our commitment to the non-negotiable BLP policy. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain for now, with the suggestion that other arbitrators note Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kingofmann. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary rendition by the United States

Ccson Ccson (talk) at 20:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Ccson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Swatjester

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Talk:Extraordinary rendition by the United States#World policy council
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-01 Extraordinary rendition by the United States‎
• Wikipedia:RSN#World Policy Council

Statement by Ccson

I have inserted text within the article and cited the World Policy Council as the source for the statements and their opinion. User Swatjester continues to remove the text because he feels the source is unreliable. I have shown the WPC is associated with a university, the WPC seek the advice of experts when needed, and I have consensus from other editors that the source is reliable for their opinion. I attempted cabal mediation, however, the user declined mediation and reverted again.

The opinion presented is the agreement of 9 persons whose background include a Senator, U.S. Ambassadors, U.S. Congressmen, College Presidents, Leaders of Churches and Foundations, and a professor at Ivy league universities.

Each person is highly regarded for their individual opinions and an agreement of the nine should be regarded more highly as a reliable source within wikipedia.

I hope the committee will accept this case and determine that the World Policy Council is a reliable source to cite within Wikipedia.

I wasn't aware that I was "forum shopping". I was following the suggested steps for dispute resolution. I'm surprised that Swatjester says that no time was given to develop this since he refused mediation so I interpreted this action that he didn't want to reach a truce even with the help of a neutral party. His response on the RSN board seems more like a scolding for the editors who decided the WPC was a reliable source. Becauuse Swatjester is an admin, I thought he woud respect the Wikipedia:BRD policy, however, the diffs shows that he restates his objections then reverts. I would also like to note that Swatjester has provided no reliable source for his continuing to revert other than his own personal knowledge of Alpha Phi Alpha and that he lives 3 blocks from Howard University where the World Policy Council was founded and based. I will wait to see if other users post on the RSN and seek the other options suggested such as 3rd opinion and RFC. thanks for your response.--Ccson (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kendrick7

Current use of this source fails WP:SOAP because no third party source is given which attests to the WP:Notability of this group's opinion.

This is a content dispute, and premature prior to filing a WP:RFC

Statement by Swatjester

Content dispute. Excessively rapid escalation with no time to develop. Mountain. Molehill. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved BQZip01

This dispute needs attempts at other avenues before ArbCom would be appropriate. There is nothing here requiring expediency and other methods of dispute resolution should be tried first — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0)

• Decline. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. The Arbitration Committee focuses primarily on user conduct disputes and generally does not decide article-content issues, such as whether a given organization's work-product is sufficiently reliable to be used as a source. The filing party acted responsibly by seeking assistance from the Mediation Cabal, but there are other dispute resolution avenues that can be pursued, including seeking a third opinion or filing an article-content request for comment. Please pursue these avenues toward obtaining consensus on the issue raised. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. This is a fairly routine content dispute and the debate on the reliable sources noticeboard has barely begun. I would advise the filer that, in order to avoid charges of 'forum-shopping', he may want to concentrate on that avenue for the moment. There appears to be no associated editor misconduct. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline as it is very premature. Newyorkbrad and Sam clearly explain what should be done, and how. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject as well stated by Newyorkbrad and Sam Blacketer. FloNight (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline; premature. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline, similar reasoning. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Presley / Onefortyone

Initiated by Steve Pastor (talk) at 16:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Steve Pastor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - (initiating party)
• Rikstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Northmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LaraLove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maria202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jaye9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Onefortyone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Onefortyone[106] Rikstar [107] Northmeister [108] LaraLove [109] Maria202 [110] Jaye9 [111]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Several editors have made heroic attempts to work with OneFortyOne. All editors who have tried to do this have thrown their hands up in frustration, as can be noted by the comments of the editors who have joined in this request.

Statement by Steve Pastor

Comments by the combined editors of the Elvis Presley article should suffice to substantiate the following request

that user OneFortyOne be permanently banned from editing the Elvis Presley article, including the Discussion page. Furthermore I request that OneFortyOne be banned from editing any article with a mention of Elvis Presley, including, but not limited to, the Milton Berle Show, Steve Allen, The Steve Allen Show, Ed Sullivan, and The Ed Sullivan Show articles.

This has been a long term pernicious problem. As Rikstar has written, 141 "knows how to play the edit warring game without getting into obvious trouble, his posts beg to be answered ... and this has been as tiresome as it has been unproductive". It should be noted that 141 brings up the same previously rejected arguments and material over and over again.

OneForty One has been banned previously. You may wish to review the following pages: [112], [113], [114].

The following are remarks are from on the Discussion page of the Elvis Presley article:

Disruptive editing. 141 continues to edit this article unilaterally, making little or no effort to co-operate with others. 141 was asked to leave my last edits for others to consider and comment on. He did not. 141 was asked to justify his accusations of fan bias in later sections on these pages first. He did not, and has gone ahead and made changes. It was explained in detail above that 141's edits regarding guitar playing didn't work and that the citation was incomplete. He reverted the changes I subsequently made and it remains a poor read and poorly cited. 141 has been asked if his intention is to make this an article of GA or FA status: no comment. 141 is refusing to allow any of his precious edits to be removed, inspite of article length, and the good will of others in removing or allowing the removal of their own contributions. Rikstar 12:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

We've approached a point where regardless of efforts to include onefortyones edits within the summary style of Wikipedia, and despite concessions to him; this editor continues to spoil any effort to bring improvement to the article so that it may become among the best at Wikipedia and receive feature status. Numerous editors thus far including yourself and tireless Rikstar have improve this article substantially. I would hate to see it all ruined by one editor who is not getting the point of our efforts nor Wikipedia WP:Point. It is time this matter is resolved by outside parties. --Northmeister 01:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This article has been degraded enough. Too much time and hard work has gone to waste. This article has great potential to be an FA. Currently, it can't even keep GA. It's time to fix the issues that ail this article. Lara❤Love 17:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It pains me to see what one user, 141, has done to this article. I watched many others work very hard on getting it to FA status. Maria202 (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So much of the "current controversy" occurs because one particular user (guess) keeps trying to own this article, and the Talk Page. I'm in favor of taking it to arbitration, or even having him banned for his behavior in and about this article and Talk. It's a shame that this user has made such a mess of this page with his obsessive blather that the page is sinking into a swamp of user despair. Hoserjoe (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC) To Steve Pastor add me to your list, please.--Jaye9 (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I will add my own comments:

If I thought it would make a difference to 141, I would go through the archeives and repeat the arguments that have been made by other editors as to why this material does not belong in this article. Since 141 has been unable or unwilling to understand, or accept any other viewpoints on this subject, that exercise would be pointless. Steve Pastor (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Rikstar has by far put the most effort into this article, and provided these additional comments.

I posted my worries about improving the Elvis article on Dec. 8, 2006 - my comment is still in the summary of FA/GA submissions. My concerns actually referred to the involvement of one user, Onefortyone, though I did not mention him by name. His history already indicated that he had an alarming and persistent preoccupation with negative and sexually biased material, something not reflected in other encyclopedic articles. I noted he had at times been banned/committed violations.

By May, 2007, I was being actively encouraged by user Northmeister to edit (he has since given up) because of other editors' concerns about the state of the article; the lack of progress seemed tied to article length, trivia, fan bias, structure and to 141's continued involvement. In the last 6 months, I have tried to improve the article but I have felt regularly frustrated by 141's talk, edits, reverts, ignoring consensus and general tactics that lead me to seriously believe he has some kind of agenda to be disruptive and/or to have his POV included at any cost. His posting of a list of miswritten lyrics implying Presley was gay was as perplexing as it was disturbing. Responding to his claims, new submissions, etc. has taken up more time and effort than with any other user, and the payback has been negligible.

141 is shrewd: he knows how to play the edit warring game without getting into obvious trouble, his posts beg to be answered if only not to give his claims undue weight, and this has been as tiresome as it has been unproductive. I hope that my own posts on the talk pages will give sufficient details about the specific objections I and others have had to 141's editing behavior, and that they will be seen as fair and as objective as possible. It should be noted however that the frustration over many hours of discussion/arguing with 141 alone has pushed me to the point where I have felt physically repelled at the thought of doing any more editing, period. I have stretched my patience to its limit trying to negotiate with/accommodate/tolerate 141, to ignore his rehashing of stale tactics/arguments. However, the evidence is there, I think, that this and other articles will never improve as they should with his continued involvement. I also believe he has scared off too many people who could help make this a featured article. And I may well be another casuality. Rikstar (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional statement by Onefortyone concerning false claims by Steve Pastor

Here are some false claims made by Steve Pastor in his statement above:

• "141 continues to edit this article unilaterally, making little or no effort to co-operate with others."

This is not true, as the discussion page shows and my efforts in order to shorten longer versions of specific paragraphs previously written by me prove. See [115], [116]. See also [117]and [118], [119], [120]. However, if some users removed entire, well-sourced paragraphs, I did not agree, which I hope is understandable. In these cases I tried to reinclude the deleted material in the original form or, alternatively, in revised, abridged form. It should be noted that others also reverted such edits. See [121], [122], [123], [124].

• "141 was asked to justify his accusations of fan bias in later sections on these pages first. He did not..."

I did. See [125], [126], [127], [128], etc.

• "It was explained in detail above that 141's edits regarding guitar playing didn't work and that the citation was incomplete. He reverted the changes I subsequently made and it remains a poor read and poorly cited."

For my response, see [129], where I have demonstrated that Steve Pastor's edits regarding guitar playing "suggests that Elvis's music was accepted from the beginning by the majority of listeners. But this isn't true," as the sources I have provided show. The said passage has been reworded by me and Rikstar several weeks ago and it is now a good read.

• "141 has been asked if his intention is to make this an article of GA or FA status: no comment."

This is also a false claim. For my statements that I am willing to help to make Elvis Presley an article of GA or FA status, see [130], [131], [132].

• 141 is refusing to allow any of his precious edits to be removed.

This is not true. For example, when Rikstar shortened this section, I did not revert it to the previous, much longer version written by me. In many other cases, I accepted edits by others, as the contribution history of the Elvis article clearly shows.

So much for Steve Pastor's false claims.

Statement by Onefortyone

It's interesting that User:Steve Pastor requests a ban in view of his biased removals of well-sourced, critical information and inclusion of fan-oriented material in Elvis-related articles.

To my mind, the whole thing is simply a content dispute concerning Elvis-related topics. Pastor seems to be primarily interested in removing critical information and including material mentioning "that some of Elvis's greatest assets were his youth and good looks." And he adds, "I have several sources (my favorite is a BB King statement, which can be seen on dvd) that he tought Elvis would be popular whether he could sing or not." See [133].

It should be further noted that most editors who have joined in Steve Pastor's request are acknowledged fans of Elvis Presley.

• Northmeister says on his user page, "I've been a lifelong fan of Elvis Presley even though he passed away in my very early years." See [134].
• LaraLove says, "I am an Elvis fan, but of his music and look, not so much his life and how he lived it." See [135].
• Jaye9 says, "Oh by the way 141, I am an Elvis Fan..." See [136]. This could suggest that they may be interested in excluding more critical material from the Elvis article.

See also these four edits by Pastor of May 2007: [137], [138], [139], [140]. Furthermore, which contributions to The Ed Sullivan Show are more encyclopedic? This one and this one by Steve Pastor or that one and that one by Onefortyone?

In the past, User:Steve Pastor repeatedly removed content he didn't like from the Elvis page. See [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], etc. etc.

What is more, Steve Pastor frequently includes references to specific fan sites and DVDs in Wikipedia articles. See [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166]. Other users had also a suspicion that the hyperlinks Steve Pastor prefers seem "designed primarily to sell CDs." See [167], [168]. This inclusion of references to Elvis fan sites, DVDs etc., which is not in line with Wikipedia policies, may indicate that Pastor is part of an Elvis fan group and may therefore be an editor who has a conflict of interest.

Concerning the well-sourced material I have used for my contributions, Steve Pastor writes:

• I think we need to keep in mind that many of the people who wrote about Elvis were writing books. Much of what they write is opinion and doesn't need to be repeated here. See [169].
• We no longer have to rely on second hand accounts of many things. We also no longer have to rely on someone elses account of what the music sounds like with the availablity of samples. See [170]

Third-party users seem to agree with my edits:

• "The article seems a bit too fan influenced. I wish that some of the input by Onefortyone (biased though he may or may not be) got more air time. Elvis was wonderful, but an encyclopedia article, especially a wikipedia article should be brutally honest." See [171].
• "Elvis was a controversial figure. His sexuality, drug taking, divorce, eating disorders etc etc all attract differing points of view. To some he was a god; to others a fat bloke who died on the toilet. For many aspects of his life there is no definitive answer. ... To attempt to compromise, this article needs to show both sides with suitable references and let the reader decide." See [172].
• "Onefortyone presents well documented information on a lot of negative aspects of Elvis` life and it gets continually edited out. Let the truth be heard, you inane fanboys." See [173].

Here are some other commentaries concerning my contributions:

• ... If the Presley article is so POV and controlled by biased Elvis fans as you claim, then feel free to make all the edits you like. They seem to wasted just appearing on the talk page. You are obviously intelligent, erudite and can write excellent prose that is unimpeachably cited. Other people are freely editing the article, so why don't you? See [174]
• I like your recent compromise. It shows we can work together and that you understand my concerns. I moved the later material to 1968 comeback to fit better in the article. In this way we can work towards your concerns. See [175]
• A Resilient Barnstar for learning and improving from criticisms, and not letting mistakes or blunders impede your growth as Wikipedian. I'm really impressed. See [176]

As far as I can see, I am the only editor who frequently cites his sources, among them mainstream Elvis biographies, essays by reputed Elvis experts, books by people who knew Elvis and peer-reviewed studies published by university presses. For the many sources I have used for my contributions, see [177].

Significantly, my opponents now endeavor to remove exactly the same sourced information that my former opponents had removed, who are banned by former arbcom decisions. To my mind, Steve Pastor and some new sockpuppets of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabbadoo are still edit warring with me, as multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes alias User:DW and banned User:Lochdale did in the past. Onefortyone (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Jehochman

You have claimed, "Onefortyone appears to have been in persistent conflict since at least May 2007..." and "I believe Onefortyone has significantly impeded development of the article, based on the statements of involved parties." If you look at the contribution history, you will find that I didn't touch the Elvis article between May 19 and August 27, 2007. As there was a permanent edit war in the past, I didn't revert any removals by other users for months in order to show good faith. This means that there was plenty of time for my opponents to develop the article, and they changed a lot. However, there was a discussion on the talk page, as my opponents frequently removed sourced content that was not in line with their personal opinion. In August, Rikstar said on the talk page, "...feel free to make all the edits you like. They seem to wasted just appearing on the talk page. You are obviously intelligent, erudite and can write excellent prose that is unimpeachably cited. Other people are freely editing the article, so why don't you?" See [178]. So I returned. The edit war started again with this edit by Northmeister, who, as usual, removed well-sourced information from the article page. Furthermore, if you look at the Elvis article in its present state from a neutral point of view, is it really such a mess as my opponents claim? Onefortyone (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to LaraLove

I think I have shown on the talk page that the claims by Jaye9, perhaps a newly created sockpuppet of one of my former opponents (see his contribution history), are unjustified. Jaye9 even made false claims concerning Elvis's father, Vernon, and his stepmother, Dee Presley, on the talk page similar to the claims made by banned user Lochdale, who even added this false information to the Elvis article. See [179] and my reply here. Onefortyone (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

I direct the Committee's attention to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive249#Still an unresolved problem. I am concerned that the current remedies against Onefortyone may be entirely insufficient to deal with the level of disruption that seems to be going on. I urge the committee to accept this matter for review to help resolve a long running controversy that the community has been unable to handle. Onefortyone appears to have been in persistent conflict since at least May 2007 and probably much longer. I remain concerned about the possibility of disruptive sock puppetry, and of false allegations against other editors. Jehochman ^Talk 23:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel comfortable applying the existing probation remedy because it is too narrowly written. I believe Onefortyone has significantly impeded development of the article, based on the statements of involved parties. Additionally, Sam Blacketer has stated that he thinks Onefortyone's editing has been acceptable. It seems that there is a conflict amongst administrators how to handle this problem. The status quo since at least May 2007 has been paralysis resulting in valued contributors becoming frustrated to the point that they abandon the article. I think an expedited review of editing since the last case and a decision to remove, alter, or sustain the existing remedy would be helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 22:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LaraLove

In the months I have been working on this article, I have found Onefortyone to be a consistent obstacle in article improvement. My involvement started after the article was improperly promoted to GA status in August 2007. It's my opinion that every attempt to bring this article to GA standards is halted by Onefortyone. Evidence has been shown on Talk:Elvis Presley that brings Onefortyone's sourced additions into question, as it appears as though he has selectively pulled information in order to push his preferred POV. He refuses to allow information to be removed in order to bring the article down to a manageable, readable length, which is why his latest additions remain. I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Elvis Presley in hopes of being able to get more attention on the article, however, it's no further along now than it was when it began a month and a half ago. Something has to change in this situation because no progress is being made and every other editor that consistently works on this article is ready to give up, which is not in the best interest of the project. Lara❤Love 18:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Egghead06

There is so much about the life of Elvis that is unknown. Since his death much rumour and gossip have grown-up around the man. How can anyone give a definitive view? They can't! What they can do is offer data which differs from the norm. As long as this is given with good references this can only help to provide a fuller picture. How can you ban someone who does that? There appears to be a drive here to only have one view point - put them all as long as they are referenced and let the reader decide. There also appears to be a drive to keep the article short so as to acheive some internal star or pat-on-the back. Brevity and accuracy do not always go hand-in-hand. This is not an encyclopedia for goldfish. Surely people can keep their span of attention long enough to grasp all the possibilities. This user may not toe the line but banning is too heavy handed. --Egghead06 (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

There appear to be two reports in the enforcement archives, see first and second and the enforcement log. Thatcher 17:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/4)

• The situation is troubling, but I am not certain that a new case is necessary. It appears that the problem could be addressed through enforcement of the existing remedies through a report to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. That page is used where an editor fails to abide by a rule in a prior arbitration case(s) and enforcement of remedies under the prior ruling are sufficient to resolve the issue. Could the parties kindly address whether the problem could be addressed more efficiently in this way. If arbitration enforcement is insufficient to address the problem then I lean toward acceptance, subject to Onefortyone's statement and possibly as a Review of editing since the prior decisions rather than a whole new case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Onefortyone is a restrained editor of the actual article on Elvis Presley and his more recent additions appear to be reliably sourced and have stayed in the article. While the talk page can get heated at times, I am very reluctant to sanction an editor merely because they happen to be in a minority. Discussion and debate is working. The current sanctions are in my view sufficient. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline for now as per Newyorkbrad. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not want to reject a case that can not be handled by past remedies or the community, but I do not see evidence for a case now. I need to see more specific evidence that we need to be involved before I can accept. FloNight (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I would rather have a motion on a previous case than open a whole new case about essentially the same issues. I would like to see evidence of occasions where 141 has been disruptive in ways that are not covered by the existing sanctions from previous cases, and suggestions for ways those sanctions could be improved to better handle the situation. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Would rather see this re-presented as an update to the previous case, in light of subsequent events, than a completely new one. That said, before doing so, clarity and outside views would be helpful to all. Is there evidence it really can't be dealt with by conduct/content views from the community (possibly backed by uninvolved admins), and use of past remedies?

• Conduct issues - The above describe many attempts to discuss/negotiate/seek consensus, but not any attempts to apply usual admin measures if there is a breach of usual editorial standards (including WP:CONSENSUS) or other forms of disruptive editing by any party. If theres a real problem, then a quick solution might be to seek conduct RFC and present the conduct problem, and state the consensus or remedy that is hoped the community will endorse (note, RFC may look at the conduct of all). And/or if necessary ask at ANI for uninvolved eyeballs and admin involvement.
• Content disagreements - Additionally is there a genuine case that regardless of interpersonal issues some significant viewpoint is being unduly marginalized or emphasized? Ask that at RFC too.

Arbcomus non necesse. If RFC or ANI or other community-based means fail, and the dispute is still damaging, that's usually when to revisit it here for arbitrated remedies. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Place appeals and requests for clarification on matters related to past Arbitration cases in this section. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. Place new requests at the top.

Privatemusings

I'm willing to give this one a chance.

Original case located here.

I propose

Repeal

Privatemusings banned for 90 days

3) Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)' editing privileges are revoked for a period of 90 days. The revocation affects all accounts.

Impose

Privatemusings placed on mentorship.

3) Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)' is placed under involuntary mentorship until 29 Feb 2008. The commitee appoints Mercury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as mentor in this case.

Thanks for consideration. M-ercury at 00:40, January 14, 2008

Free Republic

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic#Free_Republic_placed_on_article_probation

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

The article is about a conservative Internet forum founded by Jim Robinson. User:Eschoir is a former member of that forum who was permanently banned in 1998 for creating nearly 100 sockpuppet accounts for purposes of disruption. He has been called "the ubertroll Eschoir," and the person using this descriptive term was clearly not biased against him by any sympathies with Free Republic. Eschoir was so disruptive that Robinson found it necessary to spend $110,000 on a federal lawsuit to obtain a permanent injunction against him. If he ever starts another account at Free Republic, he can be jailed for contempt of court. This is the mother of all WP:COI problems. Eschoir never should have been allowed to edit the Free Republic article.

Nevertheless, Fred Bauder was willing to AGF, as seen on Eschoir's User talk page. From that moment forward, Eschoir steadily transformed the Free Republic article into his own bitter little personal blog. It was an inventory of every petty little feud that occurred between Free Republic members, and every nutball statement that was ever said in a ten-year history of about 2 million posts in their forum. The article gradually moved farther and farther away from compliance with WP:NPOV.

At one point, he added an edit containing the word "penis", describing an alleged event involving two real people: Kristinn Taylor, a prominent participant at Free Republic, and another participant using the alias "Dr. Raoul." Since the article isn't about a topic dealing with sexuality or medicine, this immediately attracted my attention regarding a possible WP:BLP violation. (Since then, Eschoir has admitted that the alleged event never occurred.)

I placed a final warning for vandalism on Eschoir's Talk page and started actively editing the article to bring it into NPOV compliance. Ever since that moment, he has been making false WP:SOCK accusations, [180] see edit summary see edit summary see edit summary [181] [182] [183] see edit summary [184] [185] see edit summary [186] [187] and occupied territory that's best described as a continuous violation of WP:NPOV, WP:TE, WP:DE, WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:DBAD.[188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193] Eschoir expanded a quotation from Robinson into a blockquote, continuing his campaign of cherry-picking quotations that make Free Republic look like a collection of nutballs and criminals. He chopped up a Talk page post into an incomprehensible mess by inserting a contentious and contemptuous response between its lines.

Eschoir then began to engage in a full-fledged edit war to revert edits that were supported by consensus, and clearly intended to restore NPOV.[194] [195] [196] [197] [198] see edit summary

When User:BenBurch offered to do a complete rewrite, or “refactoring” of the article in an effort to end the edit war, at first it seemed like a good idea. Eschoir offered several recommendations, including using a reverse chronology format, but couldn't resist making another jab at FR regarding "volunteer shock troops" and "holy war." (See also here regarding reverse chronology format.)

Rather than wait for BenBurch to do it, Eschoir did the refactoring himself on a "sandbox" page. Now it's obvious why Eschoir wants to go with a reverse chronology. It enables him to stuff all of the following epithets, from recent critics describing Free Republic, into the first 161 words of the article:

• vile
• hateful
• besmirching Christian values
• some pretty sick people posting
• inciting the murder of Hillary Clinton
• racist and homophobic
• poor moderation
• victimized by a wave of purges

Eschoir’s continued efforts to demean anyone on the Talk:Free Republic page who doesn’t share his position: [199] [200] Said efforts have been recognized as demeaning by others: [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] This is a perfect example of why COI editors need to be watched closely. Please take the necessary action.

I previously brought this up for enforcement at WP:ANI Arbitration Enforcement. I was told that your ruling was so vague that it's unenforceable, and that I should bring this issue to WP:RFAR Clarification. The ruling from the previous arbitration must be modified so that no administrator could possibly misunderstand that he has the authority, and the duty, to ban editors from editing the Free Republic article and related pages for being disruptive, failing to assume good faith, or making personal attacks. Specifically, please ban Eschoir from editing the article. It's been 10 years since he was banned from Free Republic for creating nearly 100 sockpuppet accounts. His refactoring of the Free Republic article demonstrates that even after 10 years, he can't resist the temptation to turn a Wikipedia article into a Poison pen letter to Jim Robinson. Samurai Commuter (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blatantly disruptive editing on any article can be dealt with by any uninvolved administrator, following consultation on WP:ANI where appropriate. Arbitration (or arbitration clarification) is not always necessary, and may not be needed here. With respect to Eschoir, the editing history described above is very troubling, although I would welcome comment here by Eschoir before reaching a further conclusion. (I see that Eschoir was apparently not notified of this request for clarification, and have left him a talkpage note asking him to respond.) It is also noteworthy that a proposed finding of fact during last year's case, though not ultimately adopted, stated that "Eschoir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) bears the name of an editor banned by Free Republic whose disruption of the site was so severe that an injunction was entered by a federal district court forbidding disruption of the site." If User:Eschoir is, or seeks to emulate, the individual covered by the court decision, then it might indeed be suitable for him to discontinue editing this particular article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of previous ruling (Ferrylodge)

In a previous ruling it was decided that a given editor, User:Ferrylodge, would be subject to an indefinite restriction regarding articles relating to pregnancy and abortion here. There has been recent discussion here regarding whether that restriction would apply to articles in the broader "political" sphere as well, specifically regarding a current presidential candidate. Would the previous restriction apply in this case or not? John Carter (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally Arbitration decisions mean what they say. Obviously this does not immunize the editor against administrative action that might be taken for disruptive editing of other articles, but such action has to be justified according to the usual standards and means for dealing with disruption. You may wish to ask Arbcom for a modification or extension of the prior case. Thatcher 19:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To ban or not to ban

There's been an incident following a recently closed Arb case :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Tenebrae

The party received a warning, but for future considerations, would such an incident be subject to temporary banning under Remedy 3?

Disruptive editing 3) Any uninvolved administrator may ban Skyelarke or Tenebrae from editing John Buscema or any related article or page for a reasonable period of time, either before or after three months have expired, if either engages in any form of disruptive editing, edit-warring, or editing against an established consensus.

--Skyelarke (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An uninvolved administrator may ban either participant in the case from any article or page related to John Buscema for the reasons stated. The words "or page" were added to the remedy to make it clear that talk pages are included. Talk pages are for discussion, even for expressing disagreement with other editors, so banning someone from a talkpage normally should not be necessary, but if there is disruption from either party it can be done in the discretion of the administrator handling arbitration enforcement. I will add that I am very, very disappointed to see the two of you sniping at each other again so soon after the case was resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanky for reply, Newyorkbrad - Hopefully, it's an isolated impulsive reaction following case closure - things should hopefully cool down once parties have taken the time to review and integrate the arbcom case decision a little better.

Thanks also, for your double-duty efforts (clerk and arbitrator) on the case, and best of luck with your new arbitration appointment.

Cheers,

--Skyelarke (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin actions don't generally start with the most severe remedy, and blocks don't normally start at the longest length. It's normally the other way around; the exceptions are things like vandal only accounts. In this case there was also the issue of what the arb case applied to. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motions