Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 29

< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests | Clarification and Amendment
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Roger Davies in topic Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking (4) (July 2009)
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129


Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking (June 2009)

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion
Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Statement by Earle Martin

I wish, as both an involved party in the date delinking case and a Wikipedia administrator, to lodge a formal complaint regarding the six-month ban of Locke Cole (talk · contribs) implemented in this case. Arbitrator Kirill commented that Cole has "[a record] of disruption spanning multiple years" and that "There's a point at which we must say that someone has had enough chances". However, anything more than the most cursory glance at this log shows there is very little to justify such harsh action.

  • 21 November 2005 - 3 hour incivility block
  • 3 December 2005 - 24 hour edit war block
  • 4 February 2006 - 24 hour incivility block, cancelled, extended to 48 hours, then reduced to 10 hours, then unblocked within hours
  • 28 February 2006 - 15 hour edit war block
  • 31 March 2006 - 24 hour preventative block for mass page moves, revoked 15 minutes later
  • 17 May 2006 - 24 hour incivility block
  • 29 June 2006 - 1 month block following arbitration

Two years pass without issues.

  • 3 March 2008 - 48 hour block for "harassment" (unexplained in log)
  • 6 March 2008 - 1 week block for same, immediately revoked by issuer as an erroneous block
  • 22 April 2008 - 24 hour edit war block, revoked within hours
  • 16 May 2008 - 55 hour edit war block, revoked with comment "although there was a 3rr breach, locke cole was revert-warring against abusive sockpuppets"
  • 3 June 2008 - 24 hour edit war block
  • 5 June 2008 - 72 hour edit war block
  • 18 November 2008 - 1 week edit war block, revoked within hours
  • 26 March 2009 - 5 day edit war block, revoked within ten minutes

So, a few years back Locke was a bit hot-headed and spent a month blocked following an arbitration. Then, last year, he got involved in a bit of edit-warring. Note the preventative short blocks issued and, more importantly, revoked.

Now contrast this to the actions of Ohconfucius (talk · contribs), who has repeatedly been blocked for violating the arbitration injunction, and then evading the the block by IP-editing; and has a raft of Committee findings against him, including incivility, edit warring, battling, and performing over nine thousand automated edits without the permission of the Bot Approvals Group. But he ended up with a topic ban, an editing restriction, and prevention from using automation.

This is neither proportionate nor fair. I do not understand the thinking involved in issuing such an unbalanced set of remedies. Why is one banned, and not the other? This applies also to Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Greg L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and the other listed parties receiving sanctions. The only other ban handed out in this case was that of Lightmouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who participated in organized disruption on a massive scale.

The other salient point is that it was Locke Cole that opened this arbitration in the first place. No action would have been taken towards resolving this issue, and restricting the disruptive editors who have caused so many problems over so much time, if he hadn't brought it to ArbCom's attention. He said in his initial statement, “I urge the committee to accept this case so the behavior (incivility, edit warring, stalking, personal attacks, and so forth) of those involved can be looked at.” His concerns have been borne out in full by the results of this arbitration; yet his reward is to receive a totally disproportionate ban.

I request that the Arbitration Committee rescind the ban of Locke Cole. Furthermore, I request that a full public explanation is provided of the reasoning behind this ban and how it was reached. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 13:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

  • "Editors with prior sanctions are inevitably going to [be] dealt with by ArbCom more robustly than those with entirely clean hands"—that's understandable (and I believe fair). Why did Tennis expert (talk · contribs) receive exactly the same remedy as John (talk · contribs)? TE made approximately 100 times the revert-type edits that John did, and TE had prior sanctions (one of which to do with the date-delinking case), whereas John had "entirely clean hands"?  HWV258  22:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • This question was already addressed on the noticeboard discussion page, if I recall correctly. Unlike the other editors involved, Locke Cole had already been sanctioned in a previous arbitration (the Locke Cole case) for similar disruptive conduct. Since the restrictions placed in that case obviously failed to correct Locke's behavior, or to impress upon him that edit-warring is unacceptable, we have enacted a more substantial sanction in the hopes that it will prove more effective at halting the disruption. Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the fact that prior sanctions existed factor prominently in the selection of this sanction. When the committee warns or admonishes an editor regarding certain behavior, it is to be expected that resurgence of that behavior will lead to stronger sanctions than would have otherwise been applied. — Coren (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with both Kirill and Coren. When ArbCom or the Community previously addresses an issue with an user, then it is expected that going forward the person will make changes voluntarily after the sanctions end. The case sanctions are put in place to provide involuntary restrictions since self regulation of conduct is not thought adequate. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Some of Locke Cole's behavior in relation to the date-delinking dispute, as cited in the committee's decision, was poor. In the past, Locke Cole has been involved in other disputes, during some of which his conduct was also poor. In that context, the sanction voted by my colleagues is understandable. Moreover, the fact that Locke Cole was banned as a sanction in a prior arbitration case is an aggravating factor not present with respect to any of the other parties, and provides a reasonable justification for his being sanctioned more severely than they. Nonetheless, I do believe that a mere scan of the block log may somewhat overstate the severity of Locke Cole's prior misconduct for the reasons suggested by Earle Martin, and my vote was to impose a less severe sanction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Editors with prior sanctions are inevitably going to dealt with by ArbCom more robustly than those with entirely clean hands. The solution is not for ArbCom to modify the remedy but for the editor to modify their behaviour.  Roger Davies talk 12:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In agreement with the preceding comments. --Vassyana (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong (June 2009)

Latest comment: 15 years ago18 comments14 people in discussion
Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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


Statement by Mythdon

I am requesting clarification for the wording of the terms of my soon-to-be mentorship.

In term B of "Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship", it states "Mythdon should consult and take guidance from the mentor when issues arise concerning their editing or behavior". I am confused as to who this is referring to. The confusion is is that the word "their" refers to multiple other people, but it's clear that in the other restriction(s), the word discusses me as evidenced by their wording. However, I am not certain as to what the word means in this term (term B). Here's the question: Does "their" in term B refer to issues regarding my editing/behavior or other editors editing/behavior?

I am also asking for clarification on the wording of term C. It states "During mentorship, Mythdon is restricted from making edits such as unnecessary questions and abusive warnings to users' talk pages if not approved by their mentor" - In regards to "abusive warnings", does this go for all warnings, or does it simply go for warnings (i.e. my past warnings to admins/rollbackers about their use of rollback) that were judged to be abusive? The word "abusive" raises questions, and did raise a similar questions here, but that doesn't clarify my question. As an unrelated note, while my next statement here would not deal with something that needs any clarification, if anyone ever asks, as a result of arbitrator FayssalF's statement "After all, you'll [Mythdon] be consulting with him before making any edit to anyone's talk page", besides my own talk page, I have made absolutely zero edits to user talk namespace since the closure of the case.

While you may find this request for clarification a bit ridiculous, please seriously consider clarifying.

If any other editor has additional questions regarding this or any other remedy, please do so. It may very well clarify something that I thought was some other way.

No, I have not found or attempted to find a mentor yet, in case an arbitrator asks me. If I do get assigned a mentor (which will most certainly likely happen), and if I edit during the mentorship, these are things I need to know before any interpretations are made. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Note by Mythdon

I would like to remind Risker and Newyorkbrad that before acting as arbitrators in this request, that they recused themselves from the relevant case voluntarily. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional questions by Mythdon

In term D, it states:

Mythdon shall not comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about Ryulong on any page in Wikipedia until a mentor is appointed and may only comment after the appointment with his mentor's prior approval.

While this term only covers comments about the user, I am unsure as to whether comments to the user apply as well. Does this also apply to interactions? I believe so. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

After the mentors appointment, in regards to "...may only comment after the appointment with his mentor's prior approval.", would this "approval" approve of all future comments to/about Ryulong without further approvals or would I have to gain approval for every single comment? My suspicions are leaning towards "...approval for every single comment". —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-statement by Stifle

Regarding the first point, I hate to say it, but I told you so. :)

As you were. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for resysopping: User:Coffee (July 2009)

Latest comment: 15 years ago47 comments23 people in discussion
Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original ArbCom motion (August 2008)
user:Coffee and user:PeterSymonds, having resigned their administrator status while under scrutiny when their accounts were compromised, may regain their status either through the usual RFA process, or by application to ArbCom, at each editor's own discretion (link).
Comment
By email, Coffee has requested reinstatement of his administrator privileges in accordance with the Arbitration Committee's previous motion.  Roger Davies talk 16:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Motion
That Coffee be resysopped.

Comments and discussion

Brief statements may be made here that directly address the proposal.
Statement by Xeno

PeterSymond's re-RFA nearly broached WP:200 and had less than 8% opposition. While I don't know if the community feels the same way about these two, clearly we were willing to forgive the temporary lapse in judgment on Peter's part, I would hazard a guess the same is true here. –xenotalk 16:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jennavecia

The shared offense between Peter and Chet is that they both gave out their passwords to someone else. As Xeno noted, PeterSymonds was clearly forgiven by the community, and I see no reason why Chet would not receive the same forgiveness. He was 16 at the time and made a mistake. He's now 17 and has just completed Basic Military Training for the United States Air Force. Those in the Arbitration Committee are aware of the things Chet has been through during the past year, and I think most would agree that there is reason to believe that the above has lead to a forced increase in maturity. For those reasons, I urge the committee to return Chet his admin bit. لennavecia 17:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

@Cool Hand Luke: "Limping" isn't really what I'd use to label an RFA that passed at ~85%. I mean, would you say your own RFA "limped into passing" at ~84% with 16-3-1? I believe we should be considering his admin actions, rather than basing anything off of his RFA. If there are any questionable uses of the bit or other instances of admin abuse, by all means, point them out. لennavecia 20:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out the original announcement made by Arbitrator Deskana on AN/I wherein he stated (emphasis mine):[1]

All parties made a full admission of fact, and both Chet B Long and PeterSymonds have already voluntarily resigned their adminships. Given the information above, it is clear Chet B Long and PeterSymonds have retired "under a cloud", and as such, should only have their administrator access granted again via application to the Arbitration Committee.

Statement by AGK

Roger writes, "I am interested in learning the view of the community". I think that could be best accomplished by a Request for adminship. Coffee should find a nominator or two and file one. AGK 18:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A remark, partly in response to John: As it seems that there are factors affecting this application that are not suitable for public discussion, I will refrain from filing further suggestions that an RfA be filed. With respect to the motion itself, I am minded to say that the most appropriate outcome would be to resysop Coffee. Coffee has acquired a great deal of sense since the Steve Crossin incident in 2008, and I am minded to say that restoring his sysop tools would be beneficial to the project. His conduct during the incident, the immediate aftermath, and the months that followed was certainly admirable. With Peter resysopped and Steve unbanned, resysopping Coffee would have the added benefit (or perhaps novelty) of conclusively resolving this matter—which, sadly, we observe quite rarely on this project. AGK 00:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by MZMcBride

The original decision to remove Peter's and Chet's rights was flawed. That said, I agree with AGK above. Chet has been absent from the project for quite some time (understandably). However, Chet was never a particularly controversial figure and I don't believe that, in a month or two, he would have any issue re-passing RFA. I, of course, say this as someone who is a fair bit more controversial and may face RFA again myself at some point down the road. For whatever that's worth. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sam Blacketer

MZMcBride is mistaken; Coffee resigned his adminship voluntarily, although it is probable that the committee in August 2008 would have removed them anyway had he not done so. However his was far more a momentary mistake than even Peter Symonds' actions were and Peter is now once again an exemplary admin. Personally I would urge the committee to consider restoring Coffee's admin status itself; I would certainly strongly support him in an RFA. The one thing that I would say to Coffee is that he might want to try editing for up to a month until he is up to speed with things again before doing anything other than routine admin actions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

Peter and Chet both made a serious mistake which they are unlikely to ever repeat. Have had extensive conversations with all three parties, principally because before the password issue arose I had collaborated on content with Steve toward his triple crown drive. Both Peter and Chet have learned from the mistake. Would support Coffee in whatever venue he chose to pursue resysopping. Durova273 featured contributions 21:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Per SoWhy, there is no reason that Peter's decision to seek resysopping from the community should be construed as a precedent to deny a venue that was specifically offered to Coffee when he resigned his bit. When the Committee makes a commitment to consider resysopping by direct application, the Committee binds itself to honor that commitment by considering the request on its own merits without reference to tangential factors. Durova273 18:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Maxim

I participate in the arbitration process exceedingly rarely, yet I feel compelled to comment here. As Sam says above, Chet's mistake was far less grave than Peter's was—Chet was quite uncomfortable with this arrangement, and his account, though compromised, was not actually used for more than a protection (according to Steve's statement on AN at the time the incident was announced there), unlike what happened with Peter (numerous actions), and in Peter's case, his mistake was resoundingly forgiven by the Community. Coupled with Jennavecia's points—she obviously knows Chet reasonably quite well—there is a clear case here for an automatic resysoping or allowing Chet to request resysoping to a bureaucrat, bypassing RfA, at his will. Maxim(talk) 21:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by FT2

(Breaking a wikibreak to comment) I remember thinking at the time this happened, that Coffee had shown a maturity and behavior of a high standard in facing and recognizing his mistake, and I formed the impression his regret was very genuine and he was mentally "kicking himself" in a very real way for the lapse. I think the trust by the community meant a lot to him and it struck me that was what he felt the most - that he had let others down who trusted him, more than the personal loss.

I could be mistaken and it's in part reading between the lines (I'm on wikibreak and won't be looking back at my notes at the time of that case) but my thought at the time was that of the three users in the case, Coffee greatly merited a chance (based on his part in the case and attitudes after it) to have his adminship regranted. His sincerity and regret came across as very real in his communications even at the time. It was a lapse, and I suspect he may have learned from it. At worst, "from memory" moral support. Less concerned whether this is via Arbcom amendment or RFA however. I would hope the two would coincide.

(Will defer however to others who know his conduct since the case better, or want to correct me on any of these impressions - I'm going back to impressions and thoughts from last fall, and I haven't had any knowledge of Coffee's conduct, actions or statements since.)

FT2 (Talk | email) 21:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SoWhy

One might rightfully think that Coffee should go through RFA just the same way Peter did to regain the tools and that the community will regrant the tools if they indeed have forgiven him. But I think it might not be needed in this case. The Committee has ruled that both editors may choose whether they want to apply to the Committee or to re-RFA and Coffee chose to apply here. As such, he just did what ArbCom has allowed him to do and the Committee can or at least should not reject the request just because Peter went for RFA. Instead, ArbCom should ignore Peter's actions and just decide the simple question whether they think Coffee has learned from that mistake and whether he will make such mistakes again. If they think he did learn from it, adminship should be restored by the Committee. Regards SoWhy 14:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Balloonman

I know that there are several members of the current ArbCOM group who are opposed to temporary desysoppings, but I am personally in favor of them. I think it should be easier to move into adminship and out of it... and then back into it. Under the current system, the bit is too hard to remove and people generally fight to keep it because once it is gone it is gone. I am not overly familiar with Coffee's history, but I trust the people who are speaking up. I also think that anything we can do to make it easier to move in and out of adminship is a plus. Thus, I support restoring the bit... although, I would echo some comments above that Coffee may want to take it slow while regaining his wikifeet.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Cool Hand Luke below: I appreciate your wanting to have Coffee undergo an RfA, but the committee's basis for making that a requirement was relinquished in August. The original ruling was that Coffee had two options that were up to him. He has chosen this option. As that option was afforded to him by the committee, then the committee needs to consider it. Changing the rules now would be unfair.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Steve Crossin

I'll keep what I want to say to a bare minimum. Three editors made mistakes in this incident in August, but I was the major offender and instigator. The community, for the most part, has forgiven me, so I don't see a reason why the community hasn't forgiven Chet. I agree with what AGK has said above, re-sysopping Chet would close this horrible mess. I wouldn't want Chet to have to go through RFA again because of me. The transgression was mine, and he shouldn't have to pay for it. I would urge the committee to reinstate Chet's adminship. Sincerely, Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 21:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment: I am interested in learning the view of the community.  Roger Davies talk 16:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm strongly leaning toward returning User:Coffee's tools given the particular circumstances. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • User should pass an RFA. PeterSymonds is a different user, and both users should be treated equally. I note that Coffee's original RFA limped into passing 29-5-5, while Peter's sailed through 100-0-1. It's possible that the severe lapse of judgment shown by this episode in combination with other issues would make the community uneasy about restoring administrative access. The best way to gauge this is through an actual RFA. I would seek community input in that forum rather than the small subset of editors at RFAR. Oppose automatic resysop. Cool Hand Luke 18:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • We aren't doing an automatic re-sysopping him. We are inviting Community comment about returning the tools to him. I'm disappointed that the focus of the discussion by several people is about process. If RFA's are a discussion not a vote, I see no reason that a discussion can't be held here. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
      • This is a motion to return his bit. I believe that we correctly gave the wider community an opportunity to weigh in with PeterSymonds, and I do not support a motion to bypass this step. Cool Hand Luke 07:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Incidentally, I didn't explain what I was thinking here. It was argued that PeterSymonds passed his restoral RFA handsomely so that the community had forgiven him for the incident. My only point here is that he passed by a remarkable margin to begin with, so that we should not assume that his restoral says anything about how a hypothetical Coffee RFA would turn out. I doubt that it would pass, in fact. But I now see that this is irrelevant; Coffee is not asking for us to bypass an RFA and imitate its results—he's taking the path that PeterSymonds did not, so none of the RFAs seem particularly relevant. I still can't bring myself to support because I think this was a truly shocking lapse in judgment, but I hope that he productively resumes administrative work. Cool Hand Luke 17:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In view of all the circumstances, not all of which are suited for discussion on-wiki, I would grant this application. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I am strongly of the opinion that the committee should resysop Coffee, so I am most interested in hearing reasons why he would be unsuitable as a sysop. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Quite simply, community consensus is achieved by a Request for Adminship. Either we resysop him or we don't. I am in two minds about this and agree with Brad in that there are ameliorating factors not really suitable for discussion on-wiki. My own feeling is that as we are (hopefully) pushing a more fluid boundary between adminship and non-adminship, then returning the tools and acknowledging that if problems recur there will be a review (like all admins) is feasible. I am not sure the community is at that stage yet. If we lead by example, then I (marginally) support a resysop, but am not averse to an RFA - which in many ways would be more conclusive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Motions

As there are presently 14 active arbitrators, a majority is 8.

Motion One

Motion enacted - Tiptoety talk 15:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Coffee's administrator privileges are restored, effective immediately. He is reminded to abide by all policies and guidelines governing the conduct of administrators.

Support:
  1. First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. First choice. Kirill [talk] [pf] 14:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. — Coren (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. First choice. If there was anyone giving a reason for us to think twice about giving them back I would wait for more comments or sent this to RFA. But just as I suspected, the Community has moved on, and his temporary lapse in judgment is not a concern any longer. No other reason for not granting the return of the tools have been given, so I support us resysopping him. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  6.  Roger Davies talk 15:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. Risker (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  8. He's applied to us, as the old motion suggests, and it looks like we have accepted. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  9. bainer (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  10. --Vassyana (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Reasoning similar to SoWhy's convinces me not to hotly oppose this. I don't think that PeterSymonds' RFA is a useful reference point; no conclusion can be drawn from it except that a broad cross-section supported giving the bit to PeterSymonds. This should be decided on the merits of this user, who has not edited since September. Don't let it close too fast. Contra FloNight, RFAR regulars are not the Community. Cool Hand Luke 16:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC) revised 07:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Motion Two

Motion mooted - Tiptoety talk 15:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee declines to act on Coffee's request for restoration of administrator privileges, but reaffirms that Coffee is welcome to submit a new request for adminship at any time.

Support:
  1. Second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Cool Hand Luke 16:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Second choice (but moot now anyway). I do think RfA is makes for a less ambiguous method of community approval but for several reasons am happy to do it as per motion 1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. This is the status quo; I see no need to pass an explicit motion merely to restate it. Kirill [talk] [pf] 14:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Disagree since I support us giving them back. And he could do it anyway if we said no, so the reaffirmation is not needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. Per Kirill.  Roger Davies talk 15:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. Per Kirill. Risker (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


Abstain:
  1. --Vassyana (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 community discussion (July 2009)

Latest comment: 15 years ago16 comments14 people in discussion
Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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


Statement by Radjenef

This is a request for clarification concerning the centralized discussion that has been taking place in WP:Centralized discussion/Macedonia according to WP:ARBMAC2#Establishing_consensus_on_names. As far as I can tell from the reading of that remedy, the panel of referees is to oversee while the issue is presented for discussion by the greater community. Once that discussion is over, they are "instructed to disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable [policy] rationale". We decided to winnow down the number of proposals before presenting them to the greater community. As far as I can tell, most users were under the agreement that we would remove those proposals that were supported by only one user (or no users): [8], [9], [10]. With that in mind, we proceeded to vote in order to indicate what our preferences where for those proposals. Despite the fact that one of the proposals (Proposal G) was the first preference of more than one users [11], the referees decided to remove it stating that it didn't have a proper policy rationale. I believe that the proposal ([12]) actually provided a very solid rationale that was based on policy. In addition to that, evidence arguing that "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is a more common term than "Republic of Macedonia" had been provided to back the policy rationale. I realize that the referees and some users disagree with that rationale, but that is their POV on the interpretation of policy, not necessarily that of the wider community. I believe that this proposal should be presented to the wider community for discussion since, ultimately, it is the community that will decide how to interpret policy in this issue. After the community discussion is over, the referees can still use their discretion to disregard opinions that are not supported by policy. Disagreeing, however, with the proposal's policy rationale is not valid enough reason to prevent it from ever reaching the wider community. --Radjenef (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Taivo

Actually, there was never a solid agreement among all participants as to how many proposals to put forward and how to decide which ones. The actual decision-making power was left to the three referees by ARBMAC2 and their appointment by Rlevse. While the participants in the discussion can propose processes, it is completely within the purview of the three referees as to how to actually proceed. The three referees agreed unanimously that Radjenef's proposal was not compliant with Wikipedia policy and therefore would not be presented to the wider community for comment. (This is not a "vote", but a request for comment.) Here are their exact quotes from the discussion of this at [13]:

Fairness? Is it fair to allow the community to consider a proposal that I believe I would have no choice but to reject? J.delanoygabsadds 14:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

To avoid J standing on his own on this issue, I would like to indicate my concurrence that in my interpretation of the Arbcom case, specifically the aspect cited by J above, proposal G would be difficult to acknowledge as having consensus even if it had significant local support. In this respect, I am happy with J's action above. (after e/c) The original plan was a preference voting system, not the system you describe - that system is enacted properly by J's alteration Fritzpoll (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The referees are all in agreement on this issue. While I understand that editors may strongly feel their point of view is best in this case, we have to be guided by community norms and existing policy. Shell babelfish 14:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Fritzpoll's assessment below is accurate. "Largely unchallenged" is the same as my "never a solid agreement". What there was general agreement on (not unanimous, but general), was that the number of proposals needed to be reduced before going out for comment. The STV method was agreed upon by the referees and several participants and, without serious objection ("largely unchallenged"), was the method implemented.

Statement by Fritzpoll

The description above is not entirely accurate. There was a consensus to winnow the proposals down, and I proposed using a preferential vote using STV among the particpants to get us down to 3-4 proposals. This proposal went broadly unchallenged, and an informative poll began. Running through the preferential voting system of STV, you will find that proposal G was the fifth choice. Given that we only want four to go through, it makes sense for the top four to go through. Proposal G also has other issues relating to policy and guideline application, but the basic complaint, that the means of selecting the proposals to go through for further discussion was implemented in a flawed way is incorrect. I would welcome any indication from Arbcom that we are acting against their resoltions, so that we can make the necessary adjustments before the discussion gets too much further along.

Statement by J.delanoy

My understanding of the instructions given to the referees was that we were required to reject any proposal that we felt was not based in policy. Based on the comments of the other referees and myself, I think it is clear that we are in agreement that Proposal G was not within policy. Frankly, it would be just plain wrong to submit a proposal for consideration that all of us would have no choice but to reject out of hand, even if consensus were gained for it. J.delanoygabsadds 18:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Carcharoth

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia#Advertising_this_discussion J.delanoygabsadds 05:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Shell Kinney

As much as I apologize for being a drain on the already limited resources of the folks at ArbCom, I hope this can be dealt with quickly and rather decisively. If we have to fight out every decision made by the referees, then delegating responsibilities for the discussion was of little use. The referees were in concert on this issue and believe that presenting proposals doomed to failure is an exercise in futility. I'm sure we'd all like to see a resolution on this issue; fragmenting discussion with inappropriate proposals does not advance that goal. Shell babelfish 18:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

At the risk of beating a dead horse: I'll just add that whoever wants to argue the merits of "former Yugoslav...", or wants to see it argued so that it can be treated as settled fairly once and for all, has still plenty of room for doing so in other parts of the survey. There are active proposals involving "former Yugoslav" in all three RfC pages that deal not with page titles but article text. If those get rejected (as it seems likely they will), it will be obvious that it will exclude its use in the main page title a fortiori; conversely, if they should unexpectedly receive overwhelming consensus, I'm sure the parallel decision on the main page title could be reconsidered. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Septentrionalis

I strongly oppose use of FYROM or "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in any but the most narrow of contexts. Nevertheless, if I supported them, I would not find FP's opportunities sufficient to explain my position.

An opportunity has been lost here; an open invitation to provide policy-based arguments for use of FYROM would either produce one, or (what I happen to think more likely) constitute strong evidence that there isn't any. Either would have been a gain for the encyclopedia. It may have been worth doing things this way for the sake of civility and order; but a price has been paid, and I hope it will not be paid again unless there is a clear net profit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment To reiterate what I said here: I have to agree with Fritzpoll, there is no reason to put up a proposal that does not follow wiki policy and guides. Let's take an extreme example, if user group A says "let's write a version of article X that totally supports our view and ignores others even though they have solid factual support for their view", this would clearly violate NPOV guides and should not even be considered. Problems arise when people don't agree on if a version is in violation (example: is edit X a BLP vio or not?). If the consensus is version G is not in compliance with policy, it should not be offered, esp if 4 other options are viable options with a fair amount of support. And ChrisO is correct, the referees have the authority to decide this, so stop the squabbling and get this settled by the deadline. Adding, I also agree with J.delanoy and Fritzpoll above. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm in full agreement with Rlevse's comment. The referees were correct to invalidate a proposal that would obviously be against policy. The referees have the authority to make this evaluation of the proposal and to take action. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree with preceding two comments. The referees have been empowered to act as such because of the long-term issues with the subject at hand. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I think we would only reconsider any decision the panel makes if some gross error or misconduct were shown, given that they were appointed to oversee the process as the content decisions involved are not ours to make. Prima facie the decision is sound, both on the policy bases as the other arbitrators mention above me, but also (although this would not matter on its own) on the poll results too, as Fritzpoll discusses in his statement. J.delanoy is correct; the remedy was intented to prevent localised weight of numbers from countermanding global policy. --bainer (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've been re-reading the text of the remedy that was passed (Wikipedia:ARBMAC2#Establishing consensus on names), and I fear that it wasn't made clear enough there who was responsible for setting up the discussion. It only says that the panel "will assess the consensus developed during the discussion". It doesn't say they should chose which options are presented for discussion, nor that they should set up the discussion (though, understandably, this is what has happened, and it has been going well from what I can see, other than this need for clarification). Given this, I would say that either option G should be left in (there is merit in at least mentioning it in a list of other possible titles), or an option for "other" (where people state their preferred name, giving reasons based in policy) or "none of the above" should be included. It is not inconceivable that when opened up and advertised to a wider audience, that someone will come up with a new (policy-based) argument, for one of the other possible titles, that no-one has used before. However, this is all beside the point. Discussion and comments have already started, and I see I've been left an invitation to go and express my opinion there (and I do intend to participate in these discussions). On a procedural note, could those who set up this latest Macedonia discussion please note somewhere where they publicised it? See Wikipedia:Publicising discussions for thoughts on that (disclaimer: I wrote the initial version of that 'how-to guide'). Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks to Future Perfect (on my talk page) and to J. delanoy (above) for the notes about where the proposals are being publicised, and where this publicity is being documented. Ideally, those that oversaw the setting up of the discussion would have posted the notices, but that is moot now. In future (and in this case where still applicable) may I suggest that the referees of such discussions (working with those involved in the issues and delegating to them as needed) take responsibility for the wording and posting of such notices, any updates needed to the notices, and keeping a centralised record of where the discussion was publicised. It is a lot of work, but if you set up a discussion intended to get wide-ranging consensus, it is an important part of the process. One more point - when I visited the discussions in question, it was not clear how long the proposals will be discussed for - though this is clearly mentioned on the main page (one month). Sometimes it is best for the notices to say how long the discussion will run for, and for thought to be given to notices placed in places where they will be automatically archived (after a few days or a week) before the discussion ends - i.e. should all the notices remain visible for one month? Having said that, I'd like to reiterate here my support for the work done so far by the three administrators who are helping to set up and guide this discussion. Hopefully the comments here will help. Carcharoth (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Fully concur with bainer. --Vassyana (talk) 05:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with Rlevse and Stephen Bain. The actions taken by the referees to date are within their scope. Risker (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with above as well. Wizardman 18:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with the points above, as well as add a further note: the entire point of selecting referees for this discussion is to avoid the endless picking of nits that is certain to appear when divisive disputes are "discussed" without a firm guiding hand. That they have the latitude to constrain the debate to within policy (and decorum) is a requirement, and the committee supports them fully in that endeavor. — Coren (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names (July 2009)

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion
Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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


Statement by Masem

As one of the current moderators on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration to resolve the above, I have noticed behavior that I consider disruptive, and while per the second motion made here (sorry, I cannot find where these have been archived otherwise - the case wasn't amended to include them) gives me the ability to take action, I'd rather verify this first.

User Redking7 has been trying to start a discussion on Republic of Ireland (currently where information about the 26-county state is located), first started here, which expanded out to this much before text was removed. Ok, there's a bunch of crap happening here, but sticking to the point that ArbCom is involved, Redking's attempt to rename the ROI article at the time discussion was going on clearly (to me) is against the case's first motion from here (in that Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Now, I'm willing to give a benefit of a doubt to some degree: the above motion closed on June 12th, Redking7's suggestion opened on June 6th and it looks like it may have been spurred by that. However, Redking7 continues to argue over the details of this (see comments from this diff as well as discussion here.

I personally see this as rules-lawyering (the intent of what ArbCom wants seems perfectly clear), but rather than act first, ask questions later, I will assume good faith for now but seek ArbCom's clarification if discussion about the renaming of individual articles that are part of the Ireland naming issue can be discussed on those individual talk pages or should they be brought to the Ireland Collaboration project. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Redking7

BACKGROUND/FACTS: I have been told by other editors that “ArbCom” has made rules saying:

"Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process."

On the basis of the above, a discussion I started on Talk: Republic of Ireland concerning the title name was archived. I disputed the interpretation put on the above stating that the discussion I had started:

  1. did not concern the naming of "Ireland articles" - it concerned the naming of one article, the "RoI article" - which discussion was raised in the appropriate place, the talk page of the RoI article; and
  2. the above discussion in no way "disrupted" any discussion taking place on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration;

and on that basis discussion should be allowed to continue.

Notwithstanding the explanations I gave, Masem insists I have broked ArbCom rules and said he/she was giving me his/her “only warning”.


MISINTERPRETATION OF RULES: I believe Masem has misinterpreted the ArbCom rules (and others have indicated some support for me on this). Notably, Does ArbCom wish WP:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration to be used to censor article-specific discussion on article-specific talk pages? I would find that extraordinary because:

  1. it is a golden rule of Wikipedia that matters concerning an article (including its title) can (and should) be raised on the talk page of the article concerned - this is really important;
  2. WikiProject Ireland Collaboration relates to the naming of lots of articles - it is much easier to reach consensus on one article than it is on a whole range of articles - it would be bad for the community if progress on one article was linked to conensus being reached on a whole range of articles;
  3. there is no reason why WikiProject Ireland Collaboration cannot take place in tandem with article-specific discussions on their talk page - thats the best way to ensure progress is made and a "win win" is created for all of the community;
  4. on what basis can WikiProject Ireland Collaboration be used as a way of "censoring" discussions of article-specific title matters;
  5. many editors feel that WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is now being used as a way to supress the discussions which have taken place on "Ireland" articles for a long time - and simply "park" the ouststanding issues on one page visited by fewer and fewer editors (as the Project's credibility has ebbed away over the months);
  6. similarly, WikiProject Ireland Collaboration has been in place for quite some months now (its first three Moderators resigned); it has made no demonstrable progress; and has not set a deadline for when it will conclude (i.e. it could continue to run and run with no decisions around article titles (i.e. imposition of the status quo));
  7. such "censorship" type-restrictions would be fundamentally undemocratic and ultimately don't pass the Wiki "smell test" or whats right and wrong. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Some relevant recycling from a posting of mine on the Ireland Collaboration Talk Page: Is this process (the Collaboration Project) just a ruse to ruse to stop the "disruption" caused by the RoI/IRL dispute by pretending that a process is in place to resolve the conflicting viewpoints? I hope this is a genuine process that will lead to a prompt decision but it looks unlikely to me. In particular, the ground rules on the project page state "Decisions for the WikiProject will primarily be based on the consensus of members". Is some one seriously suggesting a consensus will emerge? If no consensus emerges, does that mean there will be no decision (or another decision to make no decision as before)? What reason is there to think a consensus will emerge when it has not done so before? Is there a timeframe for this process? How long will it run? What is the deadline? I think those running this process should answer these questions and set them out on the project page. Participants can then take a view on whether this is a credible process. After all, who runs a project without having a clear timeframe? It goes without saying, I hope the project is successful. It should have credibility. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Time, unfortunately, is proving my original scepticism right. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC). So too are your responses above - ignoring all my arguments about basic Wiki principles about "no censorship" and "basic fairness". Redking7 (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • To put it simply, when I voted on the measure, I was of the mind that it required centralized discussion for those naming issues.

    Elaborating further, a significant part of the problem in the area is the reptition of the same arguments, discussions, debates, and conflicts across numerous articles over the same small set of naming considerations, often used in a divide and conquer fashion. As a practical matter, it's much easier for an editor to follow one set of discussions than to follow discussions spread out across dozens of articles. The conflict was broad and spread out across a large span of articles, with many secondary effects of the battleground atmosphere and animosity. Many issues that are primary to the conflict, such as proper naming and neutral point of view conventions, are considerations of policies and guidelines (ranging from matters of interpretation to possible rules alterations). Resolution of these issues requires broader discussion and consensus. There is a requirement for a centralized place of discussion. However, no one is being censored. Anyone may engage in discussion there and express their opinion in a constructive fashion. --Vassyana (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree with Vassyana. Having one location where the issues can be talked through is a large part of what needs to happen. Shifting the discussions to a more central location is appropriate for most of these naming discussions. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Redking7, the moderators are directing discussion about the naming of Wiki pages to a page devoted to that topic - that is not censorship. The naming discussion needs to be structured this way because having individual discussions on each and every page is disruptive when the page names are all interdependent. The only stable consensus will be one which agrees on a name for all of the pages at the same time. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I can't but emphasize on what John V. has said - the only way forward is coordinated centralized discussion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 (July 2009)

Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments10 people in discussion
Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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


Statement by Heimstern

Not entirely sure if this is going to be a request for clarification or amendment, but starting out here. In ARBMAC2, SQRT5P1D2 was topic-banned from all Macedonia-related articles and talk pages. Recently, he began contributing at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia, which ChrisO, Taivo and I view as a violation of his topic ban (at least the spirit if not the letter). SQRT5P1D2 disagrees, as seen at this request for enforcement. As J.delanoy also feels SQRT5P1D2 is not technically in violation, I'm coming here to ask for clarification. I feel it's abundantly clear that a user banned from talk pages about Macedonia should be equally banned from Wikipedia-space pages that are effectively serving in lieu of talk pages for these articles, such as centralized discussion pages. I ask the committee to clarify this and, if necessary, make proper amendments to the case.

Statement by Taivo

I agree with Heimstern's assessment. The "Centralized" discussion is in lieu of separate discussions at a variety of articles, so the topic ban should cover that centralized discussion.

Statement by Shadowmorph

I think the topic ban is clear that it is about article space since that was the concern of disruption by this user as it was drafted by the arbitration members. I believe that since many ARBMAC2 parties that were in various way sanctioned by ARBMAC2 did also participate in the centralized discussion it might be the case that this party should be allowed to participate. In any case it was not clear whether that space was covered by his topic ban to suggest that he violated it that. A clarification might be more needed now.Shadowmorph ^"^ 06:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that the fact that the discussion is not in article space is probably happenstance.

Statement by ChrisO

The fact that the discussion is taking place in the Wikipedia namespace rather than article namespace is purely happenstance - the discussion was placed there at my suggestion. It could just as easily have happened in article space. I cannot imagine that the Arbcom meant for SQRT to banned from the discussion if it took place in article space but not if it was in the Wikipedia namespace. This strikes me as an instance of a sanctioned user attempting to exploit an apparent loophole to evade his topic ban. Let's not forget, SQRT was sanctioned for going off-wiki to solicit nationalist partisans to participate in Wikipedia discussions about Macedonia; he's a single-purpose account entirely focused on the Macedonia naming issue; and he registered his account specifically to agitate about the naming issue, having (so he says) participated as an IP editor before. His willingness to solicit meatpuppets and his utter lack of acceptance that what he did was disallowed indicates that he continues to pose a threat of disruption to the ongoing discussions. His "contribution" in this instance was to delete sourced statements, despite the discussion referees and Rlevse explicitly warning against that kind of behaviour (see here). He's exactly the kind of user we don't want to participate in Macedonia-related topics, whichever namespace they happen to be in. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SQRT5P1D2

ArbCom decided that I should be "topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR for one year.".

Quoting from the relevant section, "articles related to Macedonia (defined as any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to Macedonia, Macedonia nationalism, Greece related articles that mention Macedonia, and other articles in which how Macedonia will be referred to is an issue) fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned".

Summarising, I was "topic banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages" as these "fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned".

According to Wikipedia, an "article is a page that has encyclopedic information on it" and articles "belong to the main namespace of Wikipedia pages"; this "does not include any pages in any of the specified namespaces that are used for particular purposes".

The centralised discussion does not fall under the prohibition. It's not an article, but a discussion about the naming of a term in the articles. It belongs to the Wikipedia (project) namespace, not the main (article) namespace. It isn't an "article talk page" by definition, as a discussion concerning terminology that will be used in multiple Wikipedia namespaces in the future.

Furthermore, my edit was completely justified, as there is not a single reliable verifiable source available to justify a verbal POV claim. I also contributed new data and helped towards a neutral tone in the presentation.

Concluding, while I abide by ArbCom's decision and Wikipedia's policies, I expect from users who did much worse than what is claimed that I did, but take part in the discussion, to contribute towards a positive environment. That means making NPOV edits and leave behind the battleground mentality that lead to remedies against them.

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • At first glance, it seems clear that this is a violation of the topic ban. Please note and remember that when someone is banned from a topic, then there is no "list" of pages that cannot be edited: new articles, centralized discussion, AfD subpages, requests for comments, etc. are all off-limits when within the banned topic. — Coren (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    At this time, applying the topic ban restrictions to discussion about/within the topic that lie outside article space is appropriate and supported by the decision. I would recommend, given the confusion, that it not be applied retroactively however.

    For the record, a topic or article ban that explicitly includes associated talk page can generally be inferred to include other discussion about those articles that happen lie outside the article talk page proper but are clearly tied to the same topic or area of dispute. — Coren (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Topic bans come in two main varities: Those that prohibit an editor completely from a topic and those that permit an editor to participate in discussions. It may be necessary going forward to rephrase such bans in a way that makes it clear that a topic ban is a topic ban, especially in relation to the former. I will support a motion to clarify this breadth in topic bans if it is necessary. A topic ban is meaningless if an editor can simply fork discussion of the topic to another namespace. --Vassyana (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This is mere wikilawyering by SQRT5P1D2. A topic ban is just that, a topic ban, not a ban in certain name spaces and not others, especially when talk pages are included in the ban. This part of the topic just happened to take place in the centralized discussion area and is about the naming dispute, which CLEARLY is part of the topic ban, towit, "whenever the dispute over naming is concerned". Also note the AE case was closed with a 24 hour block of SQRT5P1D2 by a totally uninvolved admin. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • As per everyone else, it is clear that ongoing discussions about the articles was part of the topic ban. An amendment would be appropriate, but may be unnecessary if SQRT5P1D2 is willing to accept that the spirit of the topic ban is now clear. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • As Vassyana explains, topic bans that do not allow talk page discussion means that the users can not join any discussion about the topic on any page. In emails exchanged between SQRT5P1D2 and the ArbCom mailing list, SQRT5P1D2 has been informed that the Committee declines to modify the ruling to allow increased participation in the topic. In my opinion, we have clarified the issue and no further amendment of the ruling is needed, but if others disagree, I can support wording that clarifies the point. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Concur with FloNight. I believe the matter has been clarified to SQRT5P1D2 already. Risker (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria (July 2009)

Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments9 people in discussion
Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by SlimVirgin

I have a question about the use of checkuser in relation to Israel-Palestine articles. We've had several ArbCom cases triggered by these articles, the latest of which was settled a month ago with several topic bans. There was talk about how these could be enforced, and whether checkuser could be used more liberally than normal, but nothing came of it, so far as I know.

I'm therefore submitting this to ask that the ArbCom authorize checkusers to use the tool more liberally when it comes to these articles, and not to require a specific suspicion regarding who might be behind the checked accounts.

We have a number of accounts hanging around— some new, some set up before the ArbCom case but not used much—who are arriving to thwart normal editing in various ways. One of them, User:Hadashot Livkarim (talk · contribs), was recently found to belong to NoCal100 (talk · contribs), who had been topic-banned during the recent case. Under the current rules, it is difficult to get a CU done unless we already think we know who the account belongs to. I have just requested a CU on LuvGoldStar (talk · contribs), an obvious sock or meatpuppet, and was told by a clerk that it would violate the "no-fishing" rule: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LuvGoldStar. But I have no idea who's behind it, and it really doesn't matter. If we can't act against an account like that, then we're basically powerless to stop the kind of highly partisan editing the latest ArbCom case acted against. Editors on the I/P pages shouldn't be expected to spend hours or days analysing edits to come up with a suspicion to justify a CU, when it's obvious at a glance that the account isn't a legitimate one.

Two things would help enormously: (1) if checkusers could be told the normal "no fishing" policy is eased when it comes to I/P articles, and (2) if admins could be reminded that checkuser and other evidence isn't always necessary: that if a new account, or an account with very few edits, is acting in a highly partisan manner on the I/P pages, admins may consider blocking it under the reasonable suspicion that it's a topic-banned editor returned, or an account acting as a meatpuppet. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Vassyana

Vassyana, thank you for your response. Speaking for myself, I can only say that this is a distress signal (and I speak only of the I/P pages, though I suspect this also applies to the other nationalist disputes Chris has mentioned). Since the I/P (Samaria/Judea) case closed, we have watched as apparent sockpuppets spring up here and there—usually not new accounts, but old ones not used that often— and there's nothing we can do about it. They may be connected to banned editors, they may not be, but we're not allowed to find out by requesting a CU, unless we have a reasonable suspicion as to who is behind the account, which usually we don't. It's worth mentioning that, so far, the accounts in question are all pro-Israeli (or what they think is pro-Israeli).
It goes beyond simple POV pushing, which you have to expect, because everyone has a POV, and everyone thinks they're right to some extent. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about single-minded people who only ever edit from one strong and narrow POV, who would never dream of doing anything else, and who show no respect for NPOV at all. They are here as advocates for Israel.
What I'm asking is that the ArbCom work with the regular editors on this issue, and help get rid of the drive-bys and the socks. Two things would help:
  • First, lifting the "no fishing" rule just a little, not to the point where the Foundation would need to be involved necessarily. I'm talking only about relaxing "no fishing" so that we don't have to guess who's operating the account before we can request one, not doing totally random checks. We would still need to show that the account had behaved suspiciously.
  • Secondly, advice to admins to be more aggressive in topic-banning accounts with very few edits who conveniently turn up to revert or add support for a position. A statement such as, "The Committee hereby invites administrators to pay special attention to new accounts, or old accounts with few recent contributions, who arrive to focus on specific positions at the Israel-Palestine pages, and to have no hesitation in topic-banning them." That one sentence would make a huge difference.
The IP articles are in a mess. Specifically, material offering the Palestinian perspective is not being fairly represented. It is left out entirely, or it is added in a mealy-mouthed fashion so that the sense of it gets lost. I say this as someone who is not known as a pro-Palestinian editor—far from it, so I'm not simply trying to make things easier for "my POV." I'm genuinely interested in finding a way to enforce the real meaning of NPOV, which is the representation of all majority and significant-minority POVs in reliable sources (preferably historians in this area), even the POVs that make certain editors uncomfortable. NPOV does not mean that everything on Wikipedia must be acceptable to right-wing Israelis. I'm sorry if that's an inappropriate way to put it, but it's the bottom line. There are a small number of editors on the I/P articles who just want to be allowed to write articles, using scholarly sources, in whatever direction those sources take us. But we need help from the ArbCom. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by IronDuke

I don't see this as being particularly useful, aside from it violating WP:AGF andWP:BITE. You will, at best, generate a more sophisticated generation of socks. Why not use the ARBPIA sanction process already in place? Indeed, I wonder why it wasn't used on the editors involved in the Judea Samaria case -- much needless waste of talent on both sides would have been avoided, as well as the apparently very great temptation to sock. IronDuke 02:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ChrisO

I'm interested in this proposal primarily because of its applicability to two cases in which I was involved, in which sock- or meatpuppetry was a significant issue - Scientology and Macedonia. Sockpuppetry was one of the main issues in the Scientology case and led directly to the IP ban of editors from Church of Scientology networks. In the Macedonia case, there was clear evidence of editors seeking to recruit meatpuppets off-wiki. In both cases, a number of long-term partisan editors were topic-banned or given lengthy blocks. There is a high likelihood of further sockpuppeting in both cases. SlimVirgin's proposal would be a useful way of dealing with this eventuality. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Thatcher

Checkuser may be used to investigate and prevent disruption, broadly construed. The response that   CheckUser is not for fishing is not part of checkuser policy, rather, it is a filter, used at WP:RFCU to discourage particular kinds of user-requested checks ("User:Smith is bugging me and I want to know if he is a sock of someone" kind of thing). It is also often the case that checkuser will not result in a clear finding without a suspect in mind, particularly with certain dynamic ISPs. With a suspect we can sometimes at least say "possible--same ISP, same geographic area" and let other admins review the contributions. "Fishing" cases are sometimes accepted, and may also be self-initiated, as long as the element of "investigate and prevent disruption" is satisfied. Where I would become concerned is where a checkuser is also a partisan editor on the topic or article in question; "involved" checkusers should seek a second hand to carry out checkuser investigations just as involved admins should seek assistance in carrying out administrative tasks. Barring "involvement", there is no reason that checkusers can not be more aggressive in patrolling disputed articles and topics, especially when subject to Arbitration remedies, provided the purpose is to investigate and prevent disruption. Thatcher 02:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by MastCell

As a tangential notice, I've closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LuvGoldStar by indefinitely blocking LuvGoldStar (talk · contribs) on the basis of behavioral evidence that I consider compelling. I don't have anything of substance to add to the comments above, though I would welcome further brainstorming on how best to deal with problem editing on the topics in question, as well as any guidance for administrators who patrol the area. MastCell Talk 20:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Nathan

One thing to keep in mind is that a CU on this account had already been performed prior to the filing of the SPI case. As the clerk who declined the RFCU request, the no-fishing problem wasn't the main issue - without comparing LuvGoldStar to specific other accounts, a new CU check was unlikely to result in new evidence.

I don't think it unreasonable to allow checkusers some latitude in checking suspicious accounts in very controversial areas; that latitude was used in this case, but it appears checkuser evidence was simply not sufficient to come to a conclusion. That happens, particularly with committed and experienced trolls. An administrator appropriately weighed the behavioral evidence and made a decision - I'm not sure what other outcome was possible. Perhaps the best use of this clarification request is to communicate that the first CU was acceptable under the circumstances, and thus encourage other checkusers to take similar steps when appropriate. Nathan T 22:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Could the clerks or the commenting editors please invite a few of the administrators that commonly work at ANI and arbitration enforcement to comment on this request? I'm interested in hearing the views of more admins that work in the trenches before coming to a conclusion. I also want to hear what commenting editors specifically want ArbCom to do in this circumstance. A sock- and meat-puppet enforcement provision? An encouragement to use exisitng process? Something else? Please bear in mind while considering this that CheckUser is bound to a some degree by Foundation and Meta policy. Also note that while ArbCom may clarify policy and principles (and institute enforcement provisions), refashioning them would require a community or Foundation motion that is outside the remit of Arbcom (except perhaps by way of encouraging discussion or resolution on the issue). I am also of the mind to think that to a large degree, many of the issues uncovered and/or highlighted by arbitration cases must be resolved by the community if it requires a significant revision, addition, or other alteration to standing policy and principles. --Vassyana (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Awaiting comments from other arbitrators. I would also appreciate it if admins working in enforcement could comment on SlimVirgin's thoughtful comments in response to me. --Vassyana (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that the issue is as one narrows down the scope, when does 'fishing' become proper detective work of a number of suspects. It has been a vexed area and a number of editors topic-banned. We now have an audit subcommittee looking at tool usage and comments from Thatcher here would be appreciated. My feeling is veering towards condoning use of the tools but I do agree that open discussion and consensus-forming is prudent.Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This is not a clarification request. If we need to augment this case or any other, please raise suggestions at Amendments. However I would want a lot of evidence that this area is especially more sock-prone than all the other hot spots. Development of the checkuser policy to better deal with all these hot spots should be undertaken by the community in the usual manner, such as Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking (2) (July 2009)

Latest comment: 15 years ago17 comments11 people in discussion
Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Statement by Kotniski

I believe the "topic ban" that has been imposed on me in this case is totally out of proportion to anything I'm supposed to have done wrong. I accept I may have hit the undo button a bit too often on a few occasions, but that was mostly under provocation by extremely disruptive editors, in any case not exceptional by WP standards, and in no way characterizes my regular behaviour on "editing and style guideline" pages. The explanation given for the sanction by Kirill (diff) shows how misguided it is - there is no instability on the pages in question at the moment, at least not due to me, and absolutely no reason is given as to why the ban should be extended to talk pages, where I have always worked civilly towards finding consensus - I am currently doing so on several pages (well WT:CAT and the associated RFC at least), which efforts would be thwarted by this sanction. Since all I've done wrong is possibly to revert too much, I propose replacing the topic ban with a 1RR restriction. And I can promise not to edit anything about date links.--Kotniski (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Roger Davies: I know the theory, but I can't for the life of me see how it applies to me in this case. What topics are severely disrupted now (as opposed to six months ago), and what reason do you have for thinking that I am likely to disrupt them? I don't see how it serves the encyclopedia's interests to take a constructively active editor out of the decision-making process for a set of pages that mostly have nothing to do with the subject of the dispute (which is settled now anyway). To me this feels like pure retribution, and not even for anything I've actually done. --Kotniski (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Coren: I can assure you that it is very onerous not to be allowed to comment on pages I've always been active and constructive on. Apart from the annoyance of the restriction itself, it is the feeling of having been unjustly criminalized, which has already apparently driven one good editor away (I hope ArbCom is working to rectify that). And yes, I believe this is a demonstrable error - the ban was extended to talk pages in spite of the absence of any problem behaviour there.--Kotniski (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Rlevse: I have been editing productively for 2(?) years; the isolated "offences" I am supposed to have committed are more than 3 months old now, so I think I've more than satisfied your conditions. I know you mean to be wise and judicial and so on, but when you say things like that to your colleagues (implying that we're not generally speaking productive editors) you may inadvertently cause deep offense. --Kotniski (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Re archiving: I reverted the archiving of this thread because it doesn't seem to have been concluded (most Arbs haven't commented yet, and I'm specifically awaiting a reply at the coordinating arb's talk page.--Kotniski (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Orderinchaos

I am writing in support of this user's application for reduction, in the view that the purpose of the decision should be to limit or prevent future disruption, and I don't see sufficiently disruptive ongoing behaviour to warrant a heavy sanction. This case seems to have involved a few instances of poor judgement in the wrong place at the wrong time, and he was hardly a major offender in the piece.

I worked last year with this user in a rather contentious area (naming of tennis players and use of diacritics, including a very, very long RfD). Overall, the situation was rather hostile - and some of the players in this dispute were in that one too (Tennis expert, HJensen, PM Anderson etc). Kotniski came in fairly late in the piece and actually was very constructive and helpful, atrying to assist the development of consensus while making his own personal views on the subject known. I think this assisted the resolution of the case in favour of the status quo, and I was sufficiently impressed in that he probably handled the dispute better than I did. I have since observed his behaviour at a number of junctures and have found him to generally work cooperatively and in good faith with others. Orderinchaos 18:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I also wish to second Tony's concise comments below. Orderinchaos 17:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Tony1

As a party to the case, I have a conflict of interest in saying anything; I nevertheless ask for unusual leave from arbitrators to state that Kotniski, in my view, is one of the most honest, trustworthy editors I have met on WP, and has rare linguistic skills of great value to the project. I ask that the Committee consider lifting at the very least the ban on his editing of the style-guide talk pages. I believe the reversions referred to by Arbitrator Roger Davies were out of keeping with his normal demeanour. Tony (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dabomb87

I accept that the arbitrators are unwilling to lift or lessen Kotniski's topic ban due to his multiple cases of edit warring. However, may I ask what led him to receive a ban from discussions? There is no finding of fact that states he has been uncivil or disruptive in discussions, and the evidence does not shed any light either. I agree with Vassayana and Newyorkbrad that the restrictions seem to be overbroad. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Rlevse
Seeing as Kotniski's restriction is for three months, I'm not sure what waiting three months for an appeal will do here. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus

As has been pointed out above, I do wonder: what was the rationale between the talk page ban? I am totally unfamiliar with the case in general, but my experience with Kotniski was quite positive - I have never seen him be uncivil or disruptive in discussions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment: Topic bans are intended to give severely disrupted topics a break from disruption and to give topic-banned editors an opportunity to get used to working in less contested areas. A three-month topic ban does not seem to me particularly heavy-handed and serves the encyclopedia's interests rather better than a 1RR restriction, which in many instances may be one revert too many.  Roger Davies talk 12:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Take Wikipedia:Linking: in November last year you edit-warred there, for which you were warned. You edit-warred again a week later, and were blocked for it. You did some more edit-warring there in March this year, making substantially the same edits as the last time. The ability to learn from past mistakes and to refrain from perpetuating disputes are two major factors the Committee will always consider in imposing remedies in a case. Based on the available evidence a relatively short topic ban such as this is apt, particularly in the context of the broader dispute. --bainer (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Despite the legitimate concerns raised by my colleagues both above and in the decision, I found the scope of the sanctions imposed against this user to be somewhat overbroad. I therefore lean toward granting all or much of this application. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with the general spirit of all the comments above. While I believe the history justifies some restriction, I also agree with NYB that the restriction is overbroad. While I would not go so far as NYB, I'd gladly support a topic ban modification that permits participation in discussion. Vassyana (talk)--22:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • At this time, given that the restriction is not onerous, I am not inclined to revisit those sanctions unless they were demonstrably based on an error. — Coren (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm thought over the current three dates case appeals and I think the thing to do is have the three editors edit productively for three months and come back for a review/modification request then. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles (July 2009)

Latest comment: 15 years ago33 comments16 people in discussion
Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note: per terms of arbitration remedy, I request that a clerk notify the parties involved

Statement by Wikidemon

Is it is permissible under Obama articles remedy 11.1 (and by extension 11) for editors restricted from interacting with each other to (a) unilaterally criticize each other, or (b) participate in meta-matters related to the others' edits?

My understanding is no. I supported the remedies in question on the hope and assumption they would put an end to accusations of bad faith made against me for months on end concerning my work on Obama-related articles, an issue close to the core of the case. I follow that by not mentioning them by name or deed, and by avoiding if I can any page or procedure where they are active. I make a reluctant exception here, because I have been accused of bad faith, trolling, and stalking[18][19][20][21] four times in the last day. This troubles me, and I wish it would stop. I am therefore asking a clarification on whether these accusations are prohibited, or whether I should just try to ignore them. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Note - I am not seeking any enforcement or action at this time. The rules are not currently explicit. So just a clarification. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Bigtimepeace

As someone who might well end up enforcing the ArbCom remedies in this case, I would also like a clarification on this point. Right now Wikidemon and Scjessey are restricted from interacting with ChildofMidnight, and the latter is restricted from interacting with the former two. In my view, this formulation should extend to commenting about one another, at least in a negative manner, even though that was not at all explicitly part of the decision. For example, saying "and other terrible editors like _________" on ANI or elsewhere would be considered unacceptable in this view. Simply saying, "I'm restricted from interacting with _________ so I can't comment on that user's comment" would of course be perfectly fine. It's disparaging comments that are the problem, as those do little more than rehash an old dispute (and in the case of Scjessey and ChildofMidnight, they would arguably be problematic in terms of their topic bans).

As such this (already linked by Wikidemon) categorizing Wikidemon as a "troll and stalker" would clearly be unacceptable. Actually it's unacceptable period in my view, but arguably more so given the remedies from the Obama case.

A quick clarification on this from the Arbs would be useful. I'll post notes on Scjessey and ChildofMidnight's talk pages about this if they have not already been informed, since I think those are the only other parties that would be directly affected by whatever the Arbs decide here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick followup to point out that while I don't think ChildofMidnight's recent statements are at all acceptable, I also don't at all think he should be sanctioned for them. I'm just interested in determining how we deal with similar incidents going forward. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
To Casliber or any other Arb, thanks for looking into these issues and posting notes like this on the talk pages of several editors. But those were a bit vague and I'm still unclear as to how to proceed in terms of enforcing the ArbCom decision. If Wikidemon posts a negative, "inflammatory" comment about ChildofMidnight (or vice-versa), should/could the offending editor be blocked per remedies 11 and 11.1 of the Obama case? I think that's what you are saying but I want to be clear, and I want to make sure that the affected editors are clear on this as well. Also you left a note for BaseballBugs who was not formally sanctioned and that somewhat confuses the issue. I think the original question relates solely to ChildofMidnight, Wikidemon, and Scjessey in the context of the ArbCom case and is expressed succinctly by Thatcher below. I just want to make sure we come away from this completely clear on the answer to that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I completely reject the entire substance of ChildofMidnight's comment about my work as an admin. I have done some probation enforcement work on Obama articles in the past, including warning C of M about certain behaviors (for which he was sanctioned by ArbCom, not incidentally). I am not, and never have been, in any dispute with him about content, and warning him in the past does not constitute a dispute. The idea that I have "been very aggressive about stating [my] politics and coming after editors who disagree with [me]" is something C of M obviously believes, but is not remotely borne out by the facts, and I am not beholden to his subjective and erroneous impressions. I of course "think we should abide by NPOV and include multiple perspectives" on the Obama articles and elsewhere and have argued for that repeatedly, as C of M should know if he's read any of my numerous comments on various talk pages.
Working as an admin in a controversial area is not necessarily a lot of fun (I've warned editors on the "other side" from C of M and taken heat from them too), but I'm not going to be forced away from helping to maintain the Obama articles and enforcing the recent ArbCom case simply because C of M does not like the fact that I've warned him in the past (note that I've never even blocked him, and have engaged in seemingly endless conversations with him on my talk page about policy matters - see here for one example - even after he came there hurling accusations at me). If he thinks I'm that bad of an admin, my recall process is here (though C of M might have to get someone else to start the RfC on me given how my process works), and he knows where the board to complain about admin behavior is. I've been watching the Obama articles for awhile (originally beginning before C of M ever edited here) and think I've been fairly helpful. I don't think there's anything that precludes me from enforcing remedies in this case on any party, though I'm sure there are other folks willing to do that as well. I won't reply to further comments from C of M, though I will note he has mentioned my user name ten or so times in the last couple of days in various place, always in a highly negative fashion, while at no point supplying so much as one diff to back up his assertions. His comment about me below is just the most recent example of that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Scjessey

I assumed that the "interaction restriction" meant that I should do everything possible (within reason) to avoid interaction and conflict with ChildofMidnight (CoM). For example, I have avoided editing any article or talk page where I have encountered CoM within its recent edit history (last 50 edits). I have also avoided contact/interaction with editors who seem to inhabit CoM's "sphere of influence" - partly on the assumption that there could be a sort of conflict-by-proxy problem. I plan to avoid any "meta matters" in which CoM is participating, whether or not my username is mentioned. This may seem excessively cautious, but I wish to prove to the community that I am doing my best to "turn the page" on past problems and contribute to the project productively. Wikipedia is more than large enough to accommodate us both. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ChildofMidnight

This issue comes about because numerous editors have come after me on my talk page and on various other boards. This behavior is similar to that I experienced in the past and tried to bring to the attention of Arbcom as a pattern of abuse targeting editors who hold minority viewpoints and dare to try to have them fairly represented in article content in accordance with our neutral point of view WP:NPOV policy. I hope this committee will be helpful in putting a stop to this kind of abuse and harassment as it's extraordinarily damaging to Wikipedia's editing environment and integrity.

Wikidemon's harassment of me including 13 posts on my talkpage in one four hour period is well documented and was entered into evidence in the Arbcom proceeding. Wikidemon's abuse of the ANI process to harass and intimidate editors is also well documented. He's taken me to ANI 5 times, each time inappropriately over a content dispute. Wikidemon has stated that he uses ANI to settle content disputes. Wikidemon refactors other user's statements on article talk pages, user talk pages, and ANI discussion. He has a whole section on his talk page related to me where he's refactored my comments into their own section. He is a disruptive editor, the only editor to refuse mediation on the Rashid Khalidi article where I was trying to help with a 3rd Opinion, and he frequently targets editors whose point of view he doesn't share for abuse and he attempts to get them blocked and banned. This harassment and smearing shouldn't be allowed to go on here.

Since Arbcom's misguided ruling, others have followed his example and been emboldened (as I predicted) by Arbcom's shameful and embarassing misjudgment (including Wizardman's misrepresentations of my polite requests to Wikidemon to focus on article content and to discuss issues over content on article content pages, which Wizardman called "templating"). There was also Wizardman's distortion of my good faith copy-edit on an article talk page as some kind of malicious refactoring. Apparently some diffs were needed to ban me, and I guess that was the best he could come up with.

Given this grotesque miscarriage carried out by this committee and signed onto by the individuals that comprise it, I have little faith in any of your judgment or fairness. Your actions have simply encouraged the abuse and harassment carried out by these individuals. They continue to go after editors with whom they disagree. Another editor who has created numerous articles on political subjects has been harassed and taken to ANI again and again by these characters. They target and harass anyone who has the audacity to try and add content that doesn't toe the line on accolades for Obama and whose politics they disagree with. They've thrown out the idea of collaborating in favor of undermining our core NPOV policy and preventing multiple perspectives from being included in articles. These outrageous behaviors should come as no surprise to this committee since its ruling has tolerated and encouraged these actions. I participated in the Arbcom, after a request from Wizardman to do so, because I had hoped that at least a stop to the worst incivility could be implemented. I had no idea that this committee would endorse the abusive behaviors carried out by these individuals and that this committee would encourage them by going after the editors already targeted and at the receiving end of these disgusting behaviors.

Baseball Bugs has posted on my talk page 7 or so times since your ruling along with other posts by Phgustaff, none of them related to article building. I removed several and asked Baseball Bugs to stop, but he continued to harass me. He's been asked to stop before by admin GTBacchus, but why would he stop? This committee has given its tacit endorsement to that kind of behavior on talk pages and to using ANI reports to go after editors, and so it has continued. If the first one doesn't work maybe the 3rd or the 5th or the 7th will. Shame on this committee and Wizardman in particular for failing to grasp the problem, for failing to address the harassment and abuse of editors through frivolous ANI reports and other methods, and for endorsing this type of censorship and bullying by punishing those affected by it. This abuse shouldn't be acceptable here. That this committee has stood by and not only allowed it to go on, but punished those at the receiving end of it, is disgusting. I'm here to write articles and build an encyclopedia collegially. Not to be harassed by POV pushers like Wikidemon, Tarc, Allstarecho, Bigtimepeace, and others. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

<The comment below was a reply in a threaded discussion that was moved here by a clerk. I've collapsed it because it's only tangentially, at best, related to this proceeding>
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't really know what Connely's abusive block has to do with this proceeding. An editor accused me of stalking them after a single copy-edit to their article I came across on new page patrol. This has been well documented. They templated and made nasty comments to me on my talk page and I told them their behavior "made them look like a jerk". They made an ANI report where numerous editors pointed out their abusive behavior, false accusations, and article ownership issues. (Of course the POV pushers used it as an opportunity to make statement against me and call for me to be blocked).
Despite the consensus in the discussion, an inebriated (self-admitted) Connely stepped in and blocked me without any discussion or consensus indicating that was appropriate, and he refused to fix his mistake despite numerous requests from other editors (going to sleep shortly after his drunken block which he wasn't even able to implement appropriately without help). While Connely's behavior is also abusive and disgusting, it doesn't have much to do with the campaign of harassment carried out by Wikidemon, Allstarecho, BIgtimepeace, Baseball Bugs, and others against any editor they perceive as being convservative politically. It's just another example of the admin abuse that will most certainly be used against me in the future, just as the block over my 4 edits over 48 hours, with discussion on the article talk page inbetween, formulated the core of Arbcom's "evidence" against me in the latest Arbcom proceeding. If there's no solid evidence against someone they just make it up and find an incompetent admin to unilaterally block, and then use the block as proof that I'm a "problem editor", ignoring my actual edit history and the facts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The idea that Bigtimepeace thinks he's an appropriate person to enforce these arbcom remedies is SHOCKING. He is absolutely not neutral and certainly not uninvolved. He's been very aggressive about stating his politics and coming after editors who disagree with him in thinking we should abide by NPOV and include multiple perspectives in our political coverage. I absolutely 100% reject the idea that he should even consider using his tools in relation to this matter, and he should absolutely refrain from using his tools in regards to Obama related subjects where he's made his personal point of view and his desire to enforce it very clear. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
    • -I was going to post this note on Bigtimepeace's talk page. But I didn't feel comfortable doing that, so I am posting it here instead.-

Hi BTP. I hope you don't mind my commenting here. I read your response to my arbnote. You made a very impressive defense of yourself, going on offense and making various accusations and insinuations against me. I rarely go diff digging, an activity I liken to dumpster diving, so I'm not going to be much help in providing you diffs of our many disputes, but your talk page history should suffice. I'm prohibited/ censored/ blocked/ banned from working on those articles anyway, but I want to make it clear that our disputes over those articles are absolutely content related and that your argument that I'm making stuff up is simply wrong. The idea that we haven't been involved in confrontations and disputes over content and article editing issues is simply not true.

I am absolutely earnest in noting that you need to put down your admin tools and stop behaving aggressively towards editors who you are in conflict with over content issues. I realize you may think you're being fair, neutral and impartial, but as you've indicated previously and is clear from your editing and behavior, you have a personal political view that's very much to one side of the political spectrum. I encourage you to recognize this and to exercise the appropriate restraint and judgment that is warranted. At many RfAs I've seen they ask whether there is a subject the nom is passionate about. It seems that you are unable to recognize your own biases and perspectives and how they are influencing your work here. I've always felt you are welcome, of course, to contribute on those articles, but I again encourage you to exercise self-restraint and to recognize that you are not neutral or impartial with respect to these subjects.

I'm here to build an encyclopedia and to collaborate with those of differing and like views to include appropriate content. I'm not here to wikilawyer with people and to play games. I'm focused on content building and article improvements. I enjoy the range of viewpoints and working out compromises to include them fairly. I apologize if there's anything in this comment that you find offensive or that you think is an attack of any sort. While I have some serious concerns over some of your actions, you generally seem to be well meaning, so I wanted to try to broach the subject with you directly. Believe it or not I think you're a fine fellow and I'd be happy to collaborate with you on any subject. That being said, there is serious issue with your approach and tool use in relation to subjects where your fairness and integrity is clouded by your political beliefs. Please remove this comment if you find it objectionable in any way. Again, I apologize if I've said anything that you think is improper or inappropriate, that is not my intention. Cheers. Take care. Enjoy your weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Unitanode

I'll keep this brief. Having looked at the issue, I can understand how CoM's editing patterns cause some issues at Obama articles. However, his detractors are not without fault. I particularly note the block that William M. Connelly Connolley levied for "incivility." Not only was this block non-preventative, it was also -- apparently -- levied while WMC was inebriated. I would highly recommend that as this clarification is offered, it also be made clear that poking CoM isn't recommended either. There are certain editors whose presence at his talkpage apparently annoys CoM greatly. How difficult would it be to effect something of a "topic ban" on commenting about CoM that would effect some of these editors? Uninvolved eyes are needed badly on this situation, and there are some whose eyes are most certainly not uninvolved at this point. Unitanode 21:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for misspelling your name. I was attempting to do so from memory, and I made a mistake. I'm not sure what that has to do with my basic point, though, nor why you found it an egregious enough error to post about within my statement. Unitanode 22:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by William M. Connolley

If spelling "Connolley" is too difficult for you I recommend sticking to "WMC", which most people can cope with William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, I didn't make a statement, just a minor comment. This was quietly "statementified" later [22] by someone else. I think it would be better if people make a clearly visible mark when they do such things William M. Connolley (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher

The issue before the committee is very simple. ChildofMidnight is enjoined from interacting with Wikidemon. Is he allowed to badmouth Wikidemon to third parties? I think the answer is pretty obvious. Thatcher 02:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

What we got here is... failure to communicate...er, no, that's not it...what we have here is a party to ArbCom (Child ofMidnight) who continues to act out the part of the aggrieved victim of an almighty cabal of evil doom out to get him. This has been going on since the first signs that the committee decision was not going to turn out as he expected to. From the pithy "Travesty in motion..." at the top of his talk page to the insults of other party members as "POV pushers" at every opportunity...article talk pages, user talk pages, AN/I, AfD. It isn't just potshots at Wikidemon (not belittling that, though), it is been a week-long, nose-thumbing tirade at anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with CoM that he is the wounded party in all this. I haven't really even been interacting with him at all through any of this; like others, I'm just siting here watching a downward spiral.

Re Caspian Blue, please do not misrepresent the case findings, which was that BB and myself were "reminded to be civil when dealing with hot-button and controversial situations", which was for getting overly snarky with others in contentious talk page discussions. It had nothing to do with ChildofMidnight directly. Obviously we've taken opposing POVs in the subject area, but our interaction never rose to a level of acrimony as with the other two, and there wasn't even an evidence section or a FoF for it. This hasn't stopped CoM from name-dropping me at every opportunity to strike against the perceived cabal, but that's his problem.
BTW, only posting with a slight hangover this morning, all is good!
Re, again, I am not "mocking" CoM or anyone else. Your frequent falsehoods are getting to be about as troublesome as his raging personal attacks are. There are no cabals, other than in your own overactive imagination.
Sigh. Perhaps ChildofMidnight has sufficiently calmed down for the moment, but as long as others like Caspian are going to be allowed to egg him on, fan the "everyone's out to get you" flames, and misrepresent what others are doing here, I doubt we've seen the end of this. Don't think there's anything left to say at this point.

Statement by Caspian blue

More clarification on the "CoM vs Wikidemon and CoM vs SJ remedies" is certainly necessary for the next time. The current remedy is vague in text. I do not fully understand CoM's drama making (yes, he did) in the recent incident, but it is obvious that Tarc, Baseball Bug and other editors in past disputes should "disengaged" from contacting with CoM for their unsolved feuds in the Obama case. They are in part responsible for "throwing gasoline to the flame". I do think that CoM should've taken a break to regain his cool, but Tarc and Baseball bug were admonished/warned for their incivility by the committee, so I think the amendment on that warning should be also intensified. Once Baseball Bug ceases to contact with CoM, then his buddies would find other thing to care.Caspian blue 04:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, yes, you're warned for "your incivility by the ArbCom", period. True, you're one of flocks coming, mocking CoM and enjoying the whole dramas in these days and of the Obama cabal together with CoM. (does not matter what your political view is in the cabal in my view - US politic drama is not my interest). You're no position to say like the above.
To Bigtimepeace, I consider you a fine admin, but you may be the second last person to "enforce the ArbCom remedy" to CoM because even if you were never in "content disputes" with him, you were in "disputes with him" for whatever reason. If CoM violates the ArbCom sanction, clerks, arbitrators or other assigned admins would carry the enforcement to CoM.--Caspian blue 13:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, Tarc's another "falsehood" and inappropriate accusations. ArbCom certainly did not catch your behavior in depth. See your own statement filled with inappropriateness. You said you only made one appearance with regard to CoM's ANI report. (falsehood indeed given these appearances to recent 3 ANI reports) [23][24][25][26][27]--Caspian blue 18:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, Tarc even visited my talk page continuing another "bogus" accusations and attacking me with this "falsefood" again.[28]--Caspian blue 22:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
It is really tiresome. As long as Tarc is continuing his usual way of speaking[29], ArbCom which officially warned him for his "incivility" could reconsider about Tarc, as well as clarifying the original remedy on Wikidemon/Sj/CoM. Tarc browbeaten me that Unfortunately for you, no one else is buying it. Tarc, trust me, you're wrong on that given that originally there was no remedy on Wikidemon vs CoM. So if you want to convince the ArbCom enough to consider a new remedy on you as fanning the situation, I do not mind. However for your own sake, please "disengage" from CoM and your improper behavior. Thanks.--Caspian blue 23:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by BaseballBugs

(Reply to Bigtimepeace moved by clerk) Regardless of any apparent vagueness of the original ArbCom statement to me, in response to Casliber's request I have pledged to disengage from and about CoM. The original issue I have with CoM, which goes back to March 8/9, is clearly not fixable, so it's best to just leave it be. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind me. I am impervious to personal attacks. But how long is the community going to let him get away with this kind of soapboxing [30] that's a gross insult to the integrity of everyone else on wikipedia? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by PhGustaf

I agree that disengagement is a good idea. CoM has developed a bunker attitude in the last few days; best to let him or her cower in it. PhGustaf (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I reiterate my suggestion that everybody go home and forget about it. Remember the Peter O'Toole line: "We have won a rock in the middle of a wasteland on the shore of a poison sea." There's no better result possible here. PhGustaf (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Seicer

While I have the feeling that CofM is very much agitated with recent events, in regards to ArbCom restrictions and sanctions that he feels that is unfair, lashing out at other respected and/or established editors and administrators at ANI is leaving a black mark on what may have been an otherwise credible case. I think the issue before the committee is simple, per what Thatcher noted. CofM should not be interacting with Wikidemon, period. The same should apply back for Wikidemon towards CofM to cover the bases, and any breach of this or continued disruption that does not abide by the bounds of dispute resolution should be intersected with an approperiate sanction. seicer | talk | contribs 04:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Allstarecho

I'm only posting a statement because, once again, CoM has felt the need to name me in his delusional escapades on the Wiki. I'll just simply repost here what I posted at User talk:Casliber#A question for you to Casliber:

  • Somewhat related.. regarding this reply to you by CoM, I will challenge you to find any harassment by me towards CoM. I've about had it with him plastering the same accusation with my name everywhere he touches on WP. I've also had it with his usual pattern of attack/run/blame everyone else for "picking on me". I can not believe that this is being allowed to continue.
  • I'm certainly not disagreeing with your assessment of William. There are issues that need to be addressed. But his issues doesn't excuse CoM's issues - not to mention, it isn't William running around slandering me everytime I turn around - it's CoM.

Now granted, about a month, maybe almost 2 now, ago CoM and I had issues regarding his well-known-now attempts at whitewashing/POV editing of certain articles. Since then? I've pretty much avoided him. Hell, I didn't even participate in the whole Arbcom case even though I certainly had more than enough diffs to shut him down completely - something I had prepared previously for an Rfcu I was planning on opening about him but never did. Let me say this clearly: Continued attacks against me - and others - needs to cease immediately, whether by block or ban and I'm almost to the point of demanding the latter. Now I'm sure I'll be followed here by him bringing up my own Wiki-sins - as he made sure to do yesterday - but I'll just say those aren't the issue here. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 13:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comments while I can see how and why CoM will be feeling frustrated at the moment, repeatedly firing up old disputes isn't helpful at all. I'll have to look a bit more before thinking about actions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Update: I have been out and about and musing on this. I think we can safely describe the situation as continuing to be highly volatile with several editors (whether justifiably or unjustifiably) feeling very aggrieved, unhappy or angry. Thus any further (even mildly) negative ad hominem comments or niggly/baiting/whatever that occur could be at best described as disruptive and a significant block would be in order. I will now notify the antagonists. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Update 2: Okay, I have posted a calm note to CoM, Wikidemon and Baseball Bugs. Let's see if we can just wind down the tension a bit without the need for sanctions just yet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Other people are handling the grit, so I'll make it simple (responding to the question as phrased by Thatcher and Wikidemon): No. It is not acceptable. --Vassyana (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Casliber's comments, and concur with Vassyana. Risker (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with the above. Complaining about people who you had disputes with a couple months ago just hurts your case, justified or not. Those accusations are part of why I put this remedy in; to avoid them. Wizardman 18:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience (July 2009)

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

  • Not really applicable: see below. Post made at WT:NPOV.

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

This case is quoted within WP:NPOV, which makes this slightly awkward wording unfortunate:

18) Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

I'd suggest that this be changed to something such as:

18) Alternative theoretical formulations which have a significant following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Obviously, clear pseudoscience exists where one or two supporters could be considered (broadly) part of the scientific community. For instance, Michael Behe is a university professor in biology, and a supporter of intelligent design, which huge numbers of sources confirm to be pseudoscience. His colleagues have even put up a webpage on the university server ([31]) stating that intelligent design "should not be considered scientific". A little clarification here would prevent wikilawyering. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Seddon

It is ARBCOM's responsibility to ensure that thier statements cannot be misinterpreted so in this aspect, ARBCOM does have a duty to correct a proposed principle in thier case. It is the professional thing to do. Especially as the community relies on the commitee to assist in such difficult areas of the project. I do however caution the community on using arbitration principles as case law.

Vassyana is however correct that the wording of policies like WP:NPOV, remains in the hands of the community and therefore the duty lies with the community to ensure that policy does not allow such wikilawyering. Changes in the policy should be taken then.

In short, both ARBCOM and the community have duties here that they must fulfill.

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment - I've always been uneasy about the practice of quoting ArbCom principles in policies, especially very old principles. Either quote the arbitration case accurately, or don't quote it at all. If the wording from the arbitration case is insufficient, then remove it and use a wording agreed upon by consensus on the policy talk page. But please don't ask ArbCom to participate (from RFAR) in the editing of policy, especially not one as key as neutral point of view. Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. The community has long ago taken ownership of that language by integrating it into policy. Any modifications thereof should be handled through the community in the form of normal policy discussion and editing. --Vassyana (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • There are several paragraphs of the Pseudoscience decision that venture more closely to content or policy rulings than would normally be found in one of our decisions. The case was decided in 2006, and not a single arbitrator who participated in the case is still serving on the committee, so it would be more than a little artificial for us to purport to "clarify" the principle in question. Therefore, on the substance of the matter, I agree with Vassyana and Carcharoth. But I also suggest that the former arbitrator who wrote the decision should be contacted, if he hasn't been already, and asked for his view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking (3) (July 2009)

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion
Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Statement by HJensen

I do not understand my 12 month restriction. My personal description on my "role" in this case is found in this small essay. In a nutshell, it seems to me that Arbitrators gradually could see that I was not really an important player in this case. But this was too late, as sufficiently many had voted for a restriction (so the available information and voting options presented to arbitrators differed over the duratin of the voting. This in itself is somewhat disturbing. HJensen, talk 22:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Kotniski

I just wanted to say that having read the essay, my own feelings after this case are very much the same as this user's. I think ArbCom really needs to look hard at what it does, how it does it, and what effect it can have on the well-meaning editors on whom WP depends. (In fact I've just been reading up on the John case, and unless there's something I don't know about, it seems absolutely despicable that a good contributor should have been driven away from the project in this way. It makes me ashamed to have raised my own case here when I now see that others have been treated so much more appallingly.) --Kotniski (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Orderinchaos

In finding myself diametrically opposed in opinion to this editor in a major dispute last year re use of diacritics (see my notes on Kotniski) I found this user the most reasonable and willing to discuss out of those who shared his opinion, and while we certainly made our differences rather obvious, at no stage did he engage in edit warring on the topic. The dispute was prolonged only by the behaviour of others. On looking at this case I see no real differences in his behaviour here, and tend to think the sanctions are a little excessive with regard to this user. Orderinchaos 18:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that Coren and Rlevse have has resigned from the committee since posting their views, and the two remaining statements express some disagreement with the original decision, where does this one presently stand in terms of a resolution? Orderinchaos 04:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I have previously expressed my disagreement regarding findings and sanctions for this editor. I will wait for further statements and the comments of other arbitrators before commenting further. --Vassyana (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I am in the same position as Vassyana, in that in voting on the proposed decision I opposed the finding of fact involving HJensen, and further opined that I would consider the restriction imposed upon him to be overbroad even if I agreed with the finding. I too will await further statements and arbitrator comments here before proceeding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • At this time, given that the restriction is not onerous, I am not inclined to revisit those sanctions unless they were demonstrably based on an error. — Coren (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm thought over the current three dates case appeals and I think the thing to do is have the three editors edit productively for three months and come back for a review/modification request then. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm recused on the original case (and don't intend to comment on any of the clarifications and appeals relating to the case), but to partially answer Orderinchaos, Coren has since returned to ArbCom (have a look at the list). I have also sent round a general appeal for arbitrators to deal with the current backlogs at clarifications and amendments (and will do so again now), so hopefully there will be more movement on all this. Carcharoth (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking (4) (July 2009)

Latest comment: 15 years ago27 comments10 people in discussion
Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Statement by Colonies Chris

Firstly, I acknowledge my lack of wisdom in becoming embroiled (along with many others) in a battle with one specific editor (User:Tennis expert. I accept entirely that however troublesome the editor, this was the wrong way to handle the dispute, and I apologise for my actions. However, it is a long way from this one incident to the unjustifiable FoF that I "extensively edit warred"; I have not been involved in any dispute except in this specific incident. And the restriction placed on me is entirely unnecessary - I have been a gnoming editor for more than four years, with over 70,000 edits. I have no record of conflict before this occasion nor subsequently, nor with any other editor.

Secondly, in the course of this case, my edits were three times brought to admins' attention as possible breaches of the mass delinking injunction. Twice an admin agreed, once an admin disagreed that I was in violation, despite all the edits being of the same nature - delinking in the course of other gnoming edits. The original statement by Arb John Vandenberg, and recent clarifications by other Arbs, must surely have established that my actions were definitely not in violation of the injunction. I have asked for specific clarification on the case's talk page, but none has been forthcoming. I have to conclude that the Arbs are staying silent because they are neither willing to endorse these blocks nor to admit they were inappropriate. (And I'd like to point out that none of these delinkings have proved controversial - not a single one of them has been relinked or even questioned).

Thirdly, I want to endorse Kotniski's comments below about User:HJensen and User:John, two valuable editors who were only ever on the outermost periphery of this dispute and who have been driven away by their unjust treatment in this case. Their cases should be reviewed immediately to remedy the injustice done to them. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Vassyana

First of all, waving around terms of abuse like 'tag-team edit warring' is not helpful or relevant – that phrase describes a situation when a group of editors gang up to push their POV on a controversial topic (such as Scientology or Ireland, for example). This is not that sort of case. The community's view on date links has been clearly expressed in multiple RFCs. It's not a POV issue.

Secondly, the community has repeatedly expressed the view that the vast majority of date links are valueless and the current unlinking RFC looks to be heading for an overwhelming vote of support for automated delinking, without human oversight of the type Vassyana deems so important. The community understands that (a) most date links were made as a side effect of date autoformatting, not as a deliberate decision to create a link, and (b) there is no obvious way for any editor, human or bot, to tell whether an earlier editor linked a particular date for a non-autoformatting reason, so arguing about the value of human oversight is pretty pointless. It is quite wrong of you to misrepresent those observations as a wanton disregard for the value of human oversight.

Reply to Vassyana (2)

Please provide diffs for your assertion that I expressed a position "dismissive of concerns and standard oversight requests". Colonies Chris (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Vassyana (3)

I am astounded and baffled that these diffs are being claimed as evidence of a position "dismissive of concerns and standard oversight requests". As I've already pointed out, most date links were made without human oversight, as a part of routinely linking dates for autoformatting, or by imitation, and no-one has suggested any means to distinguish them from links made with deliberate intention. Stating this is not dismissing the value of human oversight, it's a simple recognition that we can't read the minds of previous editors (there is almost never any discussion about such links on the article's talk page). And the growing community support for the proposed bot to unlink all autoformatted dates confirms that the community shares this view. Do you propose to sanction on the same grounds all the people who !vote 'Support' for the bot? And it's ridiculous to characterise my annoyance at Tennis expert's continual gaming the system to maintain his iron grip over the tennis articles (751 reverts, remember, claiming a 'local consensus' that was supported by no other editor and actively opposed by several regular tennis editors) as 'dismissive of concerns'. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to John Vandenberg / Newyorkbrad

John Vandenberg has clearly looked very closely at edit histories to discover eight articles where I made one unlinking edit seven months ago. I find it interesting that while claiming these edits as evidence of "extensive edit warring", he has somehow overlooked the five relinkings made in that period by User:Lumos3 to Karl Popper, the seven relinkings made by the same user to Andrea Villarreal, the five relinking edits he made to Rudolf Steiner, the six relinkings to Gabriel Fauré, the four relinkings to William Cobbett, the five relinkings to Angéle de la Barthe, the seven relinkings to Josephine Kablick and the three relinkings to Carol Gould; and he also fails to mention the non-date-related improvements that I made to most of those articles. John Vandenberg has been very keen to chase down and punish everyone who has done any delinking, condemning and driving away valuable editors such as User:HJensen and User:John, but serial relinkers escape his censure even when they're right under his nose. This doesn't look like evenhanded justice to me.

And finally, I'll reiterate the point that sanctions are supposed to be for the protection of Wikipedia, not a punishment. Does any Arb really believe that if I were unrestrained I would be out there edit warring all over the place? I agree with Coren that the restriction is not onerous, but neither is it necessary. The whole issue is about to be put to bed by a bot (to the clearly expressed relief of many of the !voters in the RFC), and once again I'll point out that I have no record of any conflict whatever on any other subject. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to John Vandenberg (2)

You noted the existence of Lumos3's seven reverts to Karl Popper here on 11 May. It is not credible that you 'did not have time' to add that user to the case. This was and is clearly a one-sided witch hunt against unlinkers on your part. It was Lumos3's judgment that some of the links were useful. It was my judgment, and the judgment of many other editors, that none were. You have decided that that judgment is not acceptable because it doesn't conform to your prejudices. Your statement above that 'it is incredibly difficult to find cases of edit warring by the delinkers' betrays that - clearly you have only been looking for cases of edit warring by delinkers and not by re-linkers. (And please note, the summaries of the unlinking edits, as you have yourself stated only two paragraphs above, also mentioned the MoS, with which all unlinking edits were in conformance.) Colonies Chris (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to John Vandenberg (3)

Your claim that the unlinkings were not discussed is false. There was a lengthy discussion with User:Lumos3 on his talk page here. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to John Vandenberg (4)

I suggest you reread that discussion yourself. It started off couched in general MoS terms, and then moved on to discussing specific dates in that article. Here are three clips illustrating: the start of the discussion, in general terms: a later specific question (which was only answered in general terms): and another later intervention pointing that out.

Hey Lumos3, I noticed that you've been date linking years on articles. This form of linking is strongly discouraged, per WP:OVERLINK#Dates, as is the old 1 January 2000 style links, per MOS:UNLINKDATES. Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you specifically say how the articles at 17 April and at 1622 enhance the reader's understanding of Richard Hawkins? Can you provide evidence that this is the case, or is it just your own opinion? Failing that, per WP:CONTEXT, these should not be linked. This benefits Wikipedia by focusing the reader's attention on links which actually go somewhere useful, as described in the guideline I already linked you to. If you are unable to properly answer the questions above, I think you should undo your edit, unless of course you were doing it just to make a WP:POINT, which I'm sure isn't true. --John (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with John. Lumos3, your recent edit summaries are saying "Wikipedia's policy is to link significant dates. Birth and death in a biography are significant". That is not what WP's policy says at all. It says: "Stand-alone chronological links should generally not be linked, unless they are demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic". If knowing what other events also happened in the year or on the date the subject was born or died is necessary to deepen readers' understanding of the subject, then those events should be, and usually are, discussed in the article itself. Those who are interested merely in "On This Day"-type information can get it independently. This is the only rationale you've provided for linking vital dates, and it does not demonstrate a deeper understanding of the topic. I suggest you need to refrain from re-linking dates that have been de-linked, unless, in any particular case, you can find a better reason than the "On This Day" argument. Such an argument would apply only to the subject at hand, and not as a blanket argument to link all vital dates in all articles. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And please note also that the initial objection to Lumos3's relinkings did not originate from any of the delinkers who have been in the dock in the current case, and the objection was supported by a second editor unconnected to that group. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg

I am going to recuse on these date delinking amendment requests, however I do want to make sure that appeals don't ignore the evidence provided on the FoF, such as Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Evidence#Karl_Popper, where Colonies Chris enters an existing edit-war that has nothing to do with Tennis expert.[32]

There were eight sequential edits like that. Here is another one of those eight in context.

John Vandenberg (chat) 21:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

fwiw, it is incredibly difficult to find cases of edit warring by the delinkers, because they used the very helpful "script-assisted date/terms audit; see mosnum, wp:overlink" when reverting. Every time I go looking for more edit-warring, I find more.

Of course it would be helpful if the parties actually mentioned the edit-wars they were involved in. Nobody bothered to mention Lumos3 in the evidence, or workshop. Doing that would have resulting in their own edit warring being more visible. As a result, I included the edit wars with Lumos3 to demonstrate that there was tag-teaming edit warring between the main parties involved in this case, outside of the tennis articles.

I have since found more evidence that Lumos3 did edit-war extensively, and I do wish I had time to add that user as a party.[33]

However it should be noted that Lumos3 was not relinking everything, or doing blind reverts. Lumos3 considered some dates to be significant, and linked those, and cited the MOS in the edit summary. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

@Kotniski, you appear to be attacking the messenger. I was just trying to do my job well, and sure didn't enjoy it, nor was I seeking any outcome. I spent the time investigating this case in order to understand the problem, as it developed, because the picture that was being given by both parties was extremely unhelpful in doing that. Accurate findings of fact that would otherwise be missed are now on the record as a summary of what caused this mess, and hopefully prevent it happening in other similar style debates. The remedies flow from those findings. I did not support many of the stronger remedies, so you have the wrong guy to label as the person seeking to "punish" anyone. p.s. we have project pages that describe tag-team edit warring. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris, my evidence (started on May 8, after the draft PD was posted on April 30) was added in order to add more background to the tennis wars. After the draft was posted, there were many unfounded allegations that I had a COI and should recuse, to the tune of 1 million dollars by Tony1, which significantly affected my ability to follow up all interesting edits and investigate everyone. Here are two of the times that Tony1 put the case on hold on specious grounds and without being forthcoming about the evidence he allegedly had, or obtaining a second opinion before making a scene about it: 1, 2.

I primarily investigated people who were already parties, and predominately those involved in the tennis wars. While doing that, I found a two or three non-tennis skirmishes. which were examples of tag team edit warring. The one you were involved in was Karl Popper.

In that dispute, Luoms3 partially reverted, relinking only dates which he believed were compliant with the MOS at that time, because he considered them to be significant. You might consider them insignificant, and remove them, but you did not discuss them, and didnt even use the edit summary to indicate your position. WP:BRD didn't happen here. Instead we see someone else arrive and delink them again, with the same bland edit summary. 10 times this happens on Karl Popper. And this happened time after time on the articles where someone believed a date was significant enough to be linked. If you and others had entered into discussions about the significance of the relinked dates, you probably would have won hearts and minds. Edit warring doesn't win hearts and minds; it does not build consensus for a change of the status quo.

Also note that I added user:G-Man as a party at the same time I added user:John, due to the Clement Attlee situation which I added into evidence. I did look into that users contributions, and in light of this perhaps you could revise your "one-sided witch hunt against unlinkers" claim.

I didn't add Lumos3 as a party, as I didnt see significant involvement at the time, because I didn't look into that users contributions. Since that time, John asked me to dig deeper into his involvement, and so it is from his contributions that I became more aware of the involvement of Lumos3. And now looking at your appeal, and by reviewing your contributions, I see Lumos3 again.

There were also date delinkers whose contributions I didn't have time to look into.

The parties who were delinking dates have been the people appealing, and requesting a deeper investigation into their involvement in this dispute. I am explaining that looking for skirmishes in the date delinkers contributions it is made incredibly difficult due to the edit summary "script-assisted date/terms audit; see mosnum, wp:overlink" being used when it should actually be "revert". These reverts are difficult to find because they are in among the thousands of other edits which were not reverts, but also had the same summary. Where the date linkers were involved in disputes, their edit summary makes it very clear that they are reverting, so I have not had the same difficulty. Hence I am complaining about the delinkers edit summaries and not the linkers edit summaries - this doesn't support your theory that I have only been looking at the contributions of one side of the dispute. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris, that discussion is mentioned in the evidence section Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Evidence#Karl_Popper. It is a general discussion, among all the other general discussions being had at that time, such as the RFCs. Please read the general discussion you point to. There is no discussion about the specific links you were edit-warring to remove, citing MOS - no attempt to find a consensus or compromise. This was a reasonably gray area in the MOS at the time, and the RFCs were trying to help clarify that gray area. And yet while those discussions were occurring, you and others were edit warring to enforce the most strict reading of the MOS, and that uncompromising approach is what brought this mess to Arbcom.

Do you feel that your edits were justified? If so, please cite the policy, guideline and/or discussion that underpins your justification, and please link to a version of the page at the time of your edits. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Kotniski

I find it disturbing that JV some Arbs apparently view these sanctions as punishment rather than prevention (he will correct me if I've misunderstood, but I can see no other motive for raking over month-old edit histories in a now settled dispute). If we are going to have a penal system on WP (and I hope we're not), then we ought to have at least two basic things (which we should have anyway, for whatever system of sanctions we use): (1) clear and rational rules (e.g. what is "tag-team edit warring"? how else is consensus to be enforced unless people are allowed to revert those who ignore it?); (2) an independent second instance for appeals (which we don't have if ArbCom allows itself to be a court of first instance as it did in this case). On several occasions I've suggested how we might improve the system to prevent this kind of out-of-control mess - I seem to have been ignored. But ArbCom could be really useful if it analysed properly what went wrong and what needs fixing for the future (after all, every ArbCom case represents a failure of the system), instead of concentrating on individuals' past misjudgments and effectively making them scapegoats for the system's imperfections. --Kotniski (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

To JV - OK, I withdraw any implication that you are the one seeking punishment, but I still think the analysis should have gone one step back - the problem we need to solve for the future is not that "X has edit warred", "Y has been uncivil", but that "people edit war", "people are uncivil", "admins are not effective at stopping edit warring and incivility when it happens." Why is this? Lack of information or clear rules? Perception that there is no alternative? ...? ...? Imposing sanctions on X and Y are no remedy to these problems (and might well do incidental harm to the project) - talking to X and Y and various other Zs (i.e. the thing you're always telling us to do) might lead us forward.
That's all from me on this page for at least a week - I hope my points will finally be listened to and that some good can come out of this terrible mess (and please get User:John back if you can - his treatment was way off the scale).--Kotniski (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Vassyana

Please read what I wrote above - you don't seem to have taken account of it in your latest statement. Firstly, the concern should be not "prior misconduct", but to prevent future disruption. Secondly, it's wrong to cite a list of exceptions to 3RR as if it were a list of exceptions to edit-warring. There is no definition as to where edit-warring begins besides 3RR - it's a question of judgement. If you haven't broken 3RR, then you quite likely haven't edit-warred (or maybe you have - but that can't possibly be an exhaustive list of exceptions, otherwise we wouldn't have 3RR but some other RR). What would be helpful would be not pointless sanctions for particular incidents months ago (even vandals don't get that treatment), but analysis, dialogue, proposals, concrete advice on how to solve this perennial and far from straightforward problem. --Kotniski (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Note by Nathan

A few short points.

  • The idea that a decision should not be revisited because its terms are not onerous on those affected has already been discarded by the Committee, most recently in the case of Shoemaker's Holiday.
  • It's been said at arbitration hundreds of times, and while it is often discarded by arbitrators, it is nonetheless true that being the subject of even a non-onerous ArbCom remedy is akin to a scarlet letter. If there are errors in those remedies, or credible allegations of such errors, arbitrators should not discard a re-examination out of hand.
  • I find it strange to suggest that parties should prove prior remedies asserting poor behavior were in error by demonstrating future good behavior. The facts upon which findings and remedies were previously made are static in history; John and Colonies Chris and others aren't pleading guilty and asking for a reprieve, they are claiming that their actions never warranted remedy. Nathan T 21:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I am not inclined to revist this, especially in light of the presentation of this request. There was significant participation in tag-team edit warring, much of which had nothing to do with Tennis expert. Additionally, discussion participation shows that Colonies Chris took a hard position with an awareness of dissent, supporting full date delinking while rejecting huamn oversight or discretion over (semi-)automated delinking tools (as an example). To blame this broader participation and rejection of common expectations for scripts and bots on a limited conflict with one editor is simply not in accord with the picture provided by the evidence. --Vassyana (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Our principles on edit-warring only make exceptions for limited and obvious cases (BLP enforcement, copyvios, vandalism, banned users, etc). Even then, they encourage caution and note that even those exceptions may sometimes be seen as controversial or even as edit warring (see here). There was participation in group edit warring. A clear (and hardline) position dismissive of concerns and standard oversight requests was expressed. At the time of the reverts, there were quite a number of complaints, dissent, and reasonable requests for accomodation that were not simply from small group of troublemakers (as some would like to portray). The recent bot RfC is a false comparison, as it is purposefully focused and limited. The delinking taking place previously was much broader than the purely full date/autoformatting focus of the new bot. I will note that I am glad that the community is moving towards resolution on the various aspects of date delinking, but that movement should not be misappropriated and misrepresented to excuse prior misconduct. --Vassyana (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In brief response to Colonies Chris, a couple of examples illustrating my point:[34][35][36] --Vassyana (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In response to Kotniski, this isn't about being punitive. I am basing my responses and opinions on what I perceive as previous trends and the likelihoods going forward. You may note that I oppose a restriction on HJensen and support a restriction that does not prohibit you from discussion. In the case of this editor, I see a variety of issues that prevent me from comfortably loosening the restriction. To boil it down: I see an editor that took a strong position in a dispute, who edit-warred to advance that position and refused to acknowledge the problematic nature of the conduct despite it being clearly explained. The way he held his position, and his comments elaborating upon it, lead me to believe that the conduct is likely to repeat in the same general area. His comments and responses indicated to me that he is dismissive of feedback, both from dissenting views and from administrators (the latter reinforcing my preceding concern). Thus, I am left with a situation where I feel there is a strong possibility of further misconduct with very little possibility that he will heed feedback. I hope this better explains my view of the situation. --Vassyana (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I've already bloated this quite enough and we're starting to go around in circles, so this will likely be my last reply (barring some significant new point being raised). There's no need to mindread or evaluate intentions in reviewing the suitability of links. As a basic and relevant example, one should be able to distinguish between full date autoformatting links and Year in X links. The assertion that there is no possible way to use human discretion when examining potential overlinking, including date links, is unconvincing. The recent bot RfC is not a valid comparison, as its scope is limited, while previous delinking was much broader. Additionally, comparing orderly consensus building to edit warring with a dismissive attitude towards reasonable concerns is misguided, at best. This attitude was not limited to Tennis expert and neither was the participation in revert warring. --Vassyana (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I have a preliminary view on this request (like several of the others that have been made arising from this case), but I'd like to ask Colonies Chris to respond to John Vandenberg's observation before I comment further. I think I know what his response is likely to be, but I want to be sure. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Consistent with my views on other appeals arising from this case, I think our sanction here was too broad and would vacate or modify it. I am not sure precisely how far I would go in scaling back the restriction, or whether I would lift it entirely, but will look into the matter in more detail if other arbitrators express any agreement with my position (failing which the issue is pretty much moot). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • At this time, given that the restriction is not onerous, I am not inclined to revisit those sanctions unless they were demonstrably based on an error. — Coren (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • No action needed by the Committee at this time largely do to the reasons stated by Vassyana and Coren. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm thought over the current three dates case appeals and I think the thing to do is have the three editors edit productively for three months and come back for a review/modification request then. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I do not believe the sanctions are onerous and therefore do not support vacating but I would be interested to hear what Brad has to say about modifying them to be more specific.  Roger Davies talk 02:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior action: Everyking desysopping (July 2009)

Latest comment: 15 years ago29 comments18 people in discussion
Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Statement by Everyking

I ask the ArbCom to review its September 2006 decision to remove my adminship. Should that removal be viewed as permanent, or is it reasonable to think that adminship should be restored under certain conditions after the passage of time? On four occasions since then I have been nominated for RfA, and on the last two of those occasions I received roughly two-thirds of the vote, narrowly falling short of the generally accepted minimum; on one of those occasions (August 2008), members of the ArbCom mailing list prominently opposed my candidacy, and on the other occasion (May 2009) the nomination was seriously disrupted by a campaign against me, in which my views and actions were gravely misrepresented. I ask the ArbCom to consider all aspects of the situation to determine whether it would be appropriate to restore my adminship. Everyking (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to the arbitrators, I don't have a lot of ideas, but I would suggest that my adminship could be restored provisionally and that I could go before RfA again after a few weeks or months. Last time, for example, there were concerns that I might go around closing AfDs despite my pledge not to do so. I felt that was an unfair objection, but if I had a provisional period in which to demonstrate that I would do nothing but routine and uncontroversial work, I think people would be less likely to object based on things they suspected I might do as an administrator. Possibly someone can think of another solution that might suit the situation better. Everyking (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

John's suggestion is quite reasonable and agreeable, although I would prefer not to have an arrangement that required me to ever evaluate consensus. I don't like to evaluate consensus, I haven't done it in the past, and I don't want to do it in the future. I only want adminship to perform routine and uncontroversial maintenance tasks, such as dealing with simple vandalism. It would be useless to have me evaluate consensus during my provisional adminship as some kind of test, because I would never do so again if I passed RfA and thus the whole exercise would be pointless. Everyking (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Responding to John: I'm not capable of putting my preferred method aside—that's why I don't want to perform any closes. I could be placed in a position where the politically acceptable option and the personally acceptable option would be in conflict, so I choose to simply avoid all such matters as long as admin discretion continues to dominate Wikipedia decision-making. If the ArbCom wanted me to have a temporary mentor, I'd accept that, although I doubt it would be much of a relationship—I have lots of experience fighting vandalism, so there would be no point to mentoring me there, and I have no intention of getting involved in other areas. Everyking (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone privately suggested the following to me, and I think it's a good idea: the ArbCom could impose a restriction on my adminship barring me from ever closing any discussions or evaluating consensus, with the penalty that my adminship would be revoked if I did so. This would surely alleviate the concerns expressed in my last RfA—that I would get through RfA and then break my promise to never close discussions, because there'd be no way to stop me from doing so. If that concern had not been an issue in my last RfA, it would almost certainly have passed, so I think such a restriction would be politically helpful to me, either as part of a provisional adminship or as something that would be applied in the future, if I ever succeed in passing RfA. Everyking (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Risker: I want to do some anti-vandalism work with the block, semi-protect, and delete buttons. Occasionally I would move an article over a redirect if appropriate. I don't envision doing much if anything else, and certainly I would not be closing discussions, blocking established contributors, or doing anything remotely controversial. Everyking (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by hbdragon88

There is precedent for restoring of sysop tools. Carnildo was de-sysopped by the ArbCom during the Pedophilia userbox wheel war case. I do not know if he ever appealed to ArbCom, but he underwent an RFA that closed at 62%. The b'crats promoted him on the belief that the ArbCom de-sysopping was meant to be a temporary measure (although nothing in the PUWW case indicated as such) and reinstated his adminship on a probationary period (see Giano case), with ArbCom reviewing after two months. Again, I do not know what happened when two months were up, but he's still an admin, so he didn't do anything to cause the ArbCom to revoke his tools. If the ArbCom sees fit to do so it could apply the same to Everyking - two months and then RFA or review. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Xeno

In their decision, the committee should speak to the concern that doing administrative work for any length of time often creates situations that can lead to "borderline" RFAs after an ArbCom desysopping. The waters can become muddy. I'm sure it is tough for bureaucrats to utilize their discretion and promote in situations like this. Something like Hbdragon88 or Everyking5 suggested above might help.

Comment by Mackensen

Inasmuch as any de-sysopping by Arbcom poisons the well, Everyking's failed RfAs don't amount to much. That which Arbcom summarily takes away it may summarily restore. The conditions which caused the de-sysopping are no longer operative, and repeated arbitration cases found no fault with his usage of the tools; certainly nothing which merited their removal. The strictures which Everyking suggests are reasonable and on his part generous and should be met with a similar spirit of generosity. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Balloonman

There is a difference between Everyking and Coffee above. I struggled on Everyking's last RfA before eventually supporting. That being said, Everyking has gone before the community on four separate occasions and not regained the bit. While Coffee can come before the committee and if the committee refuses to grant the bit back, can then run for RfA, I do not believe the reverse is true. The Committee should reflect the views of the community. If the committe acts incorrectly, the appeal to the committee's actions are to the community---not the other way around. In this case, while I may not agree with the way things turned out for Everyking, I think the community has clearly spoken (on 4 occassions).---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC) NOTE: I think Everyking is a good example of why going to the committee first is a good thing. In theory, the committee should be willing and able to weigh all the facts of the case, whereas at an RfA you are more likely to run into emotions or a partial understanding of the facts dictating the results.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal While I am adamant that 14 members of ArbCOM should not override the clear consensus of 4 RfAs, I would not be opposed to a carefully worded statement from ArbCOM stating that Everyking has been a benefit to the community and been productive. That he has ArbCOM's blessing to run for adminship via RfA should he choose to do so. This will allow the community to have the ultimate say while alleviating the stigma he suffers from being under an ArbCOM ban. That being said, such wording would have to be carefully worded as not to be an endorsement of resysopping... it would have to be neutral in tone.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC) EDIT: SmokeyJoe is right, if ArbCOM chose to endorse his run for adminship, I would have no problem with that. I just don't think ArbCOM should overrule 4 failed RfA's.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Time to act? I may be mistaken, but I think there is a clear consensus forming among both the people who are commenting and the members of Arbcom. The idea of restoring Everyking to Sysop does not seem to have the necessary support. There does seem to be at least some interest/willingness to write a statement about EK to help assuage the stigma of the 3 year old stigma. I think somebody should go ahead and write up to 5 proposals: 1) Addressing the initial question---restoring the right of EK. I would expect that proposal to return the verdict of no. 2) Write a statement endorsing the restoration of the bit through RfA. 3) Write a neutrally worded statement indicating that EK should be judged for RfA based upon current actions. 4) Make a statement explicitly stating what the ArbCOM would like to see EK do before making a more definitive statement. 5) Declare that ArbCOM stands behind the original desysop of EK and does not support the restoration of the bit to him.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Acalamari

I think the conditions Everyking mentioned above regarding his resysopping are very fair, especially the one with him agreeing to be placed under a self-ban from consensus-deciding actions with an ArbCom-enforced desysopping should he break the ban. If it weren't for disagreement over Everyking's opinion on consensus in the last RfA, he would have passed, despite the participation of grudge-voters, and I think that Everyking's "self-sanction" of being desysopped if he ever started closings AfDs, discussions, etc. should easily cover that opposition, and while I personally think that the added clause of and RfA six months/a year after resysopping is overkill, it only adds to Everyking's reasonableness in this matter. With Everyking being resysopped now and placed under an ArbCom-enforced self-ban, anyone who opposed last time around on the consensus-issue would have no reason to oppose next time around, but they would have the bonus of being able to review recent admin actions from Everyking and base their decision on that instead. Even without a self-ban, I trust Everyking when he says that regarding a resysopping, he would continue the admin work he did as an administrator previously: I've yet to see anything that Everyking has ever said to turn out to be a lie.

In addition, I'm expecting to be told something along the lines of "determining consensus is a necessity for administrators". I can assure anyone that it's not: in my now two years of being an administrator, the (very, very few) XfDs I've ever closed were snowball deletes/keeps, their outcomes didn't need to be determined, and I didn't even need to close those XfDs anyway: editing articles and using the tools against vandals has been more fun, relaxing, and worthwhile. In fact, I expect Everyking's use of the tools to be somewhat like how I use them: primarily for for dealing with vandals (though I also handle rollback requests, however I don't think Everyking wanted to participate in that either, and most admins don't anyway). In short, Everyking can still have plenty of things to do as an administrator without ever need to make consensus-based decisions or close consensus-based discussions.

Thank you. Acalamari 02:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SmokeyJoe

Our custom, as I understand, is that ArbCom may desysop, and may reverse a temporary desysop, but may not unilaterally promote to administrator. EveryKing firmly is in the grey area of a long standing desysop and subsequent failed RfAs.

It is recognised that a past ArbCom desysop poisons the well for future RfAs. Considering this, the current ArbCom should be encouraged to make a statement, as per Balloonman’s proposal, a statement that may, depending on its inclination, for example:
• Recommend promotion, subject to community support at RfA, or
• Give blessing for an RfA attempt, or
• Make a bland statement seeking merely to neutralise the poison, or
• Express concerns for the community to consider.

A partial, restricted, undesysop, would be an undesirable response to the grey zone situation. Administrators should be trusted, or not. If EveryKing were to promise certain things, such as to avoid closing consensus discussions, then it is up the community to decide whether it trusts that he will honour his promise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Awaiting statements. Everyking, please provide any links that might be useful to newer arbitrators in evaluating your request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I recused in the last request Everyking made to the Committee in an attempt to ease his worries that sitting arbitration members are campaigning to keep him from regaining his tools or otherwise make on wiki life difficult. As well, I made my views known at his last RFA. So this time, again, recuse. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Speaking generally, and not to this specific case, the 'crats understand that they can use discretion when closing RFAs and do. Up til now, probationary or restrictive adminships have not been supported by the Community. I think that any adaption of RFA and Adminship needs to be ironed out between the 'crats and the Community because ArbCom does not write policy. If there is a dispute about it later, then ArbCom could assist in settling it. But I don't think that we should skip that step. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • On principle, I believe it would be inappropriate to grant adminship to an editor by fiat absent a specific provision to do so in advance. In the face of your failed RfAs, such an action would explicitly be against community consensus and would (rightly) cause a great deal of drama and protestation at the unprecedented expansion of ArbCom powers. The principle that the community decides who gets specific tools is fundamental, and should not be dismissed because they did not give the results one hoped for.

    On the other hand, I understand your concerns that your prior RfAs may have been a poor reflection of community consensus because of external factors. I'm open to suggestions on how to better gauge the consensus of the community given the circumstances. — Coren (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    I would be receptive to the idea that the bureaucrats may be encouraged to have somewhat wider latitude than usual, and that they can recommend a return of the tool be subject to conditions (including a possible review at the end of a probationnary period). This being a rather innovative proposal, however, (despite the unusual precedent), some reasonable community support would nevertheless be required for the process itself. I do think this bears further discussion. — Coren (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • For the moment, waiting in agreement Newyorkbrad's statement and Coren's closing comments. --Vassyana (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • As per Coren, I feel very uncomfortable (in essence) explicitly overturning two failed RfAs to regrant adminship. As a supporter I strongly sympathise with EK's plight, but I don't think this is the right way of addressing this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I cannot personally support the restoration of sysop rights by ArbCom after the community has twice hovered on the borderline. However, if this editor reflects on and addresses the major contentious issues (Question 5 in his last RfA, for instance), his next RfA would probably go much better.  Roger Davies talk 11:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm a crat and an arb. Wearing either or both hats, I can not in good conscience resyssop somone who has the RFA failure record of Everyking. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • A resysop on the condition that you do not close any "consensus" based decisions on your own, followed by a reconfirmation RfA, sounds like a possible way forward. If you can find another admin who will mentor you, and you both will actively undertake in performing closes on some "consensus" based decisions, then the community should be able to evaluate whether they want you to continue doing sysop duties. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    Everyking - I would prefer that you went out of your want to do some consensus based decisions prior to your reconfirmation RfA in order that you demonstrate that you are capable of putting your preferred method (counting) aside and use the tools in the expected manner. I can see why you wouldnt want to do this, and wont require it, but you and a mentor need to work out a mentorship plan so that we can review it. This amendment request should probably be declined at this time, and you probably should circulate your draft plan around before opening a new amendment request. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - on the one hand, Everyking has failed RfAs after the desysop. On the other hand, there's the possibility that some opposition will stem from being desysopped. However, while we can overturn our own desysop, I'd be reluctant in this situation, though I could look into it more. Wizardman 03:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: (Warning, this will be long.)

    Like Wizardman, I see the failed RFAs and it causes me some concern. There is no doubt, though, that an Arbitration Committee desysopping does poison the well to some extent, as Mackensen points out. I've reviewed the initial desysopping discussion on the mailing list (September 2006, if any of my colleagues wish to review it), and it's clear it was an emergency desysop that, in today's climate, would have been followed by a proper case onwiki in which Everyking would have been permitted to give evidence and explain his actions. He's done so since then, both on and off wiki, and I largely find his explanations believable.

    This particular iteration of the Arbitration Committee has been somewhat bolder in opening the door to editors with a troubled history, with an understanding that unacceptable behaviour would result on a prompt withdrawal of privileges. Everyking has outlined his areas of planned administrative work, and they specifically exclude those areas where there has been concern expressed. Most administrators confine their activities to limited areas; I am unlikely to ever edit the Mediawiki space, for example, and other admins rarely block or don't go near AfD. I'm willing to consider a resysop here, but I'd like to see Everyking be more explicit in what administrative areas he has an intention to work in, and not work in. Everyking, if you would go through the rights assigned to administrators as listed on Special:ListGroupRights and identify which you intend to use (perhaps on a userpage linked to your statement above), that would give us all a better idea of what you intend to do. Risker (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Have supported you at RFA and will do so again. I'm not keen on overturning RFAs, and I doubt I would ever vote to do this in similar circumstances. I think you'll pass next time. Cool Hand Luke 16:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Am only just returning to activity, following a wikibreak, but I've been comparing this request to the recently successful (and now archived) request to resysop another admin who was desysopped (I failed to vote on that in time). The difference here seems to be that there are failed RFAs to balance with concerns that the well has been poisoned against resysopping beyond what was reasonable considering the case at the time and the length of time since the case. My conclusion is that I would not oppose a motion to resysop, but I would not yet support it either (ironically, I think the number of appeals filed over the years by Everyking has weighed against him in some people's estimation). Like Cool Hand Luke, I think you have good chances of passing next time, especially if you take John's advice and plan towards it, showing what you are capable of doing (e.g. non-admin closures) and other useful work. I would also endorse a statement by ArbCom stating that though the question of community trust for adminship is not yet clear, Everyking is (and has been for some time) a user in good standing. Carcharoth (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_29&oldid=1142656268"