Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ikip (talk | contribs) at 00:52, 23 April 2008 (→‎Raul654's did not follow the arbcom guidelines). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts

Clarifications and other requests

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please so to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

User:Benjiboi: appeal of topic ban on Matt Sanchez

See AE noticeboard thread and topic-ban appeal

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

Statement by Benjiboi

I request a complete lift and reversal of the indefinite topic ban against me on Matt Sanchez. I'm quite disappointed at having to take this step to clear my name and worked to avoid having to take this step and indicated so during the AE discussion.[1] I'm surprised that my contributions to Wikipedia was treated in this manner and the same assuming of good faith we extend to all others seemed to evaporate towards me despite my obvious attempts to communicate civilly and directly.[2] I feel the blocking admin may have been personally invested in driving me away from the article by their involvement in numerous OTRS tickets from banned user Bluemarine (who is one of Matt Sanchez's accounts) and making edits on Sanchez's behalf. I appreciate the work that OTRS volunteers do and that they are trying to work with someone who earned a community RfC and Arbcom ban for voluminous and personal attacks amongst other issues. However, despite Sanchez's assertions that I, and others, are a part of a "radical left-leaning fringe that is the LGBT is hell bent on venting frustrations through the article", many editors, including admins and LGBT editors, worked to follow policy and work with Sanchez and tried to look past his personal attacks and unique style of writing accusatory statements. When information and verifiable statements at odds with Sanchez's views were presented he routinely would fill up the talk page sometimes contradicting himself. It's understandable for someone to want their biography to only show them in the best possible light but topic-banning editors because the subject of the article doesn't like their tone[3] doesn't seem like a inspiring direction for the project and in Sanchez's case the list of user's he's found problematic would quickly add up.

In short, the article exists because his notability is as a former gay porn star who became a marine and then the poster-child for US social conservatives thus placing Sanchez in the center of several current American culture wars including issues of gays in the military. (As referenced by the Military Times as a "don't ask, don't tell" issue) I personally don't care about his sexuality or expression thereof, I do care about presenting sexuality issues correctly and as factually as possible. In addition, I felt I was helping Sanchez avoid abusing Wikipedia for self-promotion and personal gain by insisting that claims be reliably sourced.

The other reason his case received national attention was that it was revealed he also was a "gay" escort (an escort for men who have sex with men) who mostly advertised in gay male magazines with Sanchez stating he was an escort (prostitute) on the internationally broadcast Fox News Channel Hannity & Colmes show. Sanchez stated (in the Arbcom case and elsewhere on wiki) that he later retracted his statements but no proof of that retraction seems to have ever been presented to balance out his earlier statements. I have regularly and consistently stressed than anything about his escort work has to be well sourced and neutral. I believe he is now being coached how to self-publish retractions on his blog. I can certainly see why Sanchez wouldn't want anyone around who was basically saying we print what's verifiable not just what you'd like. It wasn't until Sanchez's Arbcom ban and the related AfD during his Arbcom case that the circular talk page dynamic seemed to disappear. In fairness, he may have also been targeted by SPAs but that's not a license to abuse those you disagree with. Once Sanchez was banned I worked to clean up the talk page, archives and keep the discussion constructive and as focussed as possible in a collaborative fashion. (See January's archive for instance.) Even when folks disagreed we mostly stayed constructive and tried to find workable solutions. My contributions were mostly constructive and it would we a stretch to paint me as simply trying to disrupt or otherwise compromise Wikipedia's policies.

JzG (Guy), in what I feel was a somewhat condescending, impatient, confrontational and personal manner, bordering on uncivil, IMHO, rather than simply warning me in any manner suggested instead I be topic-banned without giving me any notice I had breached policy or was heading in a bad direction. When I responded to all the stated concerns he repeated that this ban was really no big deal.[4] When I sought guidance I was told I should take my case to JzG (Guy) directly to see what it would take to have the ban lifted.[5] He deleted the request only stating " Discussion at AE board" in the edit summary.[6] Later JzG (Guy) admitted he was unwilling to budge on the issue. I sent two email to the Arbcom elist per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee stating

I got no response.

Finally, I believe it states, "[E]ditors are expected to make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement...in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals." If I've overstepped a line or indeed violated some policy then please point it out, perhaps a warning would have served the purpose of ensuring the "tone" of edits remained civil and constructive. I wish it had been considered and attempted, instead I have been shown what I consider to be disrespect and a leap of bad faith. Banjeboi 13:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline prior to topic-ban

4 March
Amongst other {{editprotected}} requests, a request was made by Durova to remove wording that could have been reworded instead; within that request was that the reference was to content hosted at YouTube. There didn't seem to be an emphasis or effort to improve the wording to clarify that the gay escort didn't refer to Sanchez, just to remove it altogether. This request was later struck by the same editor who later filed the AE request that started all this. Durova struck the request as it was pointed out they were mistaken and that it wasn't YouTube after all.

21 March
(19:56, 21 March 2008)
JzG (Guy) edits Sanchez article removing (rather than rewording) problem phrase (it has since been re-added and reworded). And removing a source rather than correctly attributing to the original source.

(22:50, 21 March 2008)
JzG (Guy) opens ArbCom case amendment to allow Bluemarine (Matt Sanchez) to comment on the Matt Sanchez talk page as "over a dozen" OTRS tickets (averaging two per week) since Sanchez's 7 Feb Arbcom ban. He also alleges that the protected article has been edited with an a agenda and other editors should be monitored. The request is withdrawn as Sanchez again evades his ban. Although arguably incomplete some of his socks have been tagged and others have been logged into the Arbcom case.

22 March
(09:10, 22 March 2008)
Durova first posts to the talk page regarding YouTube as source concern; they state they are making "one last effort" but no previous efforts to bring up sourcing in the article seem to be evident. They also don't suggest, even as an option, to source to the original publisher. Nothing seems to suggest that anyone would have opposed fixing the sourcing and, in fact, it has since been done.

(23:03, 22 March 2008)
Durova files noticeboard AE request to remove Youtube links and "potentially defamatory claims that reference them be removed from the article". When asked why posting to the AE board they respond, "Two editors consistently oppose, and are filling up the talk page AE thread with irrelevant comments that give passersby the mistaken impression that this is a content dispute. But this isn't a content issue; copyright is bright line policy. I am on the verge of filing a separate AE thread against one of those editors for tendentiousness, incivility, and disruption." I feel however that this was presented as we need to remove all YouTube citations and this, IMHO, was the first that this was brought up. Also they painted me as "filling up the talk page AE thread with irrelevant comments that give passersby the mistaken impression that this is a content dispute". Instead of approaching the issue as we need to fix this sourcing it was, IMHO, presented as this needs to also be removed. After months of Sanchez's thwarting progress it was quite frustrating to be accused of the very same thing. Subsequently the refs have been amended to the original publishers as I would have readily agreed had it been presented as such. I was also not given any indication that I was in any way violating BLP (or any policy), nor was I notified in any way that I was being discussed on an Admin board. Note: the links have been updated to the original source and no "potentially defamatory claims" from those sources seem to have been found although many other items that show the subject in a less than flattering light have been removed or reworked.

23 March
'(11:19, 23 March 2008)
Admin JzG (Guy) proposes myself and another editor be topic-banned "for consistent failure to follow WP:BLP". No notice was given to me or any indication that I was being considered for a ban or that I had violated any policy.

Statement by JzG

The Arbitration Committee is well aware, I think, of the long-term issues of accuracy and neutrality in Matt Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sanchez, aka Bluemarine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), is banned and therefore restricted to using OTRS to request changes to the article. This has resulted in an absolute barrage of email, much of it related to edits made by Benjiboi and Eleemosynary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (now indefinitely blocked for other reasons).

The reason I advocated a topic ban was that Sanchez complained specifically about Benjiboi's edits and their neutrality, and because Sanchez vehemently denies the "escort" characterisation which Benjiboi is so determined to include. A situation with a banned article subject, WP:BLP concerns, what appears to be selective reporting in the outside world, and obsession with including problematic content, is pretty close to impossible to manage.

I said right up front that I don't consider this a black mark against Benjiboi, we just don't need the hassle of tens of emails a day from an extremely agitated subject. We've had well over a hundred emails in total.

Some OTRS tickets related to this:

I know this is going to sound like Morton's Fork, but the main reason I am so strongly opposed to Benjiboi editing that article, is that he is so very determined to do so. We do not need obsessive editors on WP:BLP articles. This was not my call alone, but it's true that not many were involved. Durova was one, and she also has long experience of the Sanchez article.

If article probation is to mean anything at all, then it must surely mean that people dealing with a sensitive article (and an angry subject) can request others to leave it alone, and expect to have that request stick. In this case, requesting did not work, so we had a topic ban, and now this. What is so very very important about the Sanchez article that Benjiboi must be allowed to contribute despite the subject's clear preference otherwise?

Comment: The subject has been banned from Wikipedia for his homophobic attacks on gay editors, including Benjiboi. Via the subject's year long ban from Wikipedia, the subject has no rights to an article about him, just as Ann Coulter has no rights to the article about her. Benji is one of the best editors I've seen on Wikipedia. Characterizing him as obsessed with the Sanchez article is absurd. His contibs history proves that. If he's obsessed with anything, it would be Wikipedia in general and not poor little ole Matt Sanchez. Benji works on many articles at once. Just a look at his talk page right now shows "notes to self" all over it referencing the many articles he's working on. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 15:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sanchez's ludicrous and defamatory attacks on gays has no bearing on who gets to edit the Matt Sanchez article. Mr. Sanchez, to be indelicate, can shove his bigoted views up his own ass. There is obsessive behavior (the history is demonstrated and incontrovertible) coming from multiple sides here. To be as un-PC as possible: It's odd that most of the "pushing" to include negative material comes from self-admitted homosexual editors. The whole thing has a tit-for-tat retaliatory feel, and we don't need that shit. Before anyone screams "Oh my God, Lawrence hates the LGBTers," my best friend went from Mr. to Ms., and I love her still, one of my best friends in the world is as gay as people can possibly be, and I was the one that assembled the bulk of the evidence displaying the absurd homophobic attacks here by Sanchez. However, "Wikipedia" doesn't need an evangelical war of The Gays Vs. Sanchez and Sanchez Vs. The Gays. His article is so heavily watched now that any attempts to whitewash or scrub the article of his sourced and factual history of performing in gay pornography, and doing some gay escort work (both points which seem to be points of contention) won't happen. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to JzG's statement. While I appreciate the position OTRS volunteers are put in I seem to be getting punished for Sanchez (yet again) gaming the system. I'm not an OTRS volunteer and have no access to the emails linked above so have no clue what Sanchez wrote but all my contributions are quite evident in the article and talk page history. I may be wrong here but I don't recall anyone, ever, asking me not to edit there prior to this surprise ban. No one politely asided me to indicate that sadly Wikipedia does topic-ban editors primarily because the subject prefers them not to. I'm also not "determined" or "obsessed" to include anything that isn't true and reliably sourced. As I've stated a few times in the AE threads I have no problem following policies and if I made an error simply (civilly) point it out.
Over a hundred emails in two months? Doesn't that seem to indicate that just maybe, yet again, Sanchez is the primary source of this drama and, yet again, instead of dealing with him firmly to set boundaries the frustration is applied elsewhere. A variance was being created for Sanchez so he could edit on the talk page but was dropped because he wasn't willing or able to refrain from again evading his ban. If this situation is "close to impossible to manage" it's not by my doing and I'm more than willing to abide by policies and, in fact, have frequently taken bios to the BLP board as well as assisted other bios listed there. The same courtesy shown to obvious vandals didn't seem to be extended to myself. This ban was stated as dealing with reliable sourcing on the AE board and had it been presented as such in the first place on the talk page as "we need to correct these sources to the original sources" I don't think anyone would have disagreed. Banjeboi 17:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Punished? I don't think so. There are over two million articles you can edit without causing problems of apparent militant advocacy and upsetting the subject. You're not banned from Wikipedia, you are free to edit on any subject you like except Matt Sanchez, who is, it must be said, an incredibly minor figure. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the key part is that this is the encyclopedia "anyone can edit".. including any article so that argument is moot. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 18:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Jpgordon

Matt Sanchez has made many requests, and a decent proportion of them have been rejected as mere interpretations of weight. The "escort" business is only one of a number of contentious issues, most of which have now been settled. Sanchez has never had a right of veto over the content and I've several times told him "no" in no uncertain terms. This is not about Benjiboi's advocacy of one particular edit, either, it's about a long-standing pattern of advocacy on that article, and yes, any editor who showed such a pattern of edits would cause the same problem, because the pattern of edits and talk page comments reveals an agenda, and Wikipedia (especially Wikipedia biographies) is not the place to pursue an agenda. Guy (Help!) 18:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GRBerry

The original WP:AE report that triggered the topic ban by JzG is archived here. (I closed this report.) The follow-up discussion of Benjiboi's protest is archived here. 14:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Lawrence

Having been involved with this for a long time myself I have to agree with Guy's assessment, unfortunately. All the regulars on Matt Sanchez should find some other pages to work on. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Durova

It is disappointing to see gaps in Benjiboi's presentation. Actually we had substantial discussion about YouTube hostings prior to 22 March. The problems there were contributory copyright infringement, as laid forth in Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP were also relevant. The article was sourcing negative information about a living subject to copyvio hostings at YouTube. I would have had no problem with citing such material to a legitimate hosting or a transcript, but linking to copyright infringements places WMF at risk of a lawsuit. Per BLP, negative text in the article that had no legitimate citation needed to be removed, at least temporarily, until a legitimate hosting or a show transcript could be found.

I first raised these issues on 29 February:

Durova: Videos can be edited and digitally altered in misleading ways, so a video hosted on a blog isn't reliable either. That goes for YouTube too, which is a point I hadn't raised yet. I'm not taking any partisan position here. Count the number of Blogspot and YouTube links I've removed in my last thousand edits. Or double check with the noticeboard.[7]

Benjiboi is aware of that statement; he replied an hour later.[8] I responded again.[9]

The next day he continued the thread as follows:

Benjiboi: Disagree completely. The world was agreed to be flat at one point as well, now we have better information that just maybe that isn't accurate. New media sources continue to evolve and wikipedia continues to keep up with those changes, sometimes successfully. I again assert that both the video of Sanchez doing what he says he does and the content which no one seems to dispute can be used and if semantics is an issue address those concerns. Dismissing something out of hand doesn't make for better articles.[10]

With that statement, Benjiboi was dismissing the Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry precedent on contributory copyright infringement as semantics, which is a hypothesis that would really be better to test on his own website where he bears the consequences, than on WMF's website where the Foundation bears the consequences. He is also attempting to lecture me about new media. Although I was tempted to reply with a link to my dozens of featured picture credits, instead I just referred him to a noticeboard for third party feedback:

Durova: You are welcome to take advantage of this full protection to see whether the volunteers at WP:BLPN confirm your proposal regarding sources.[11]

His reply was sarcastic:

Benjiboi: Lovely. How special of you to make suggestions for my volunteering.[12]

Again on March 4 I mentioned the YouTube problem at another thread. Here is a link to that thread, which gives a good picture of how difficult even the simplest changes had become: Talk:Matt_Sanchez/Archive_18#Wall_of_Shame_photo_edit_request. Another relevant thread, immediately before the WP:AE request: Talk:Matt_Sanchez/Archive_18#Ahem. It was partly due to the difficulty of getting even bright line policy edits implemented that, after waiting nearly a full month to settle obvious BLP and copyright issues that ought to have been handled immediately, I resorted to AE for an edit request.

Also, contrary to Benjiboi's assertions, I did offer alternative citation options. It wasn't my responsibility to spell out these things and I was somewhat concerned that this would appear patronizing, but I wanted to be perfectly fair:

Durova: Now to state this for clarity: there are other ways besides YouTube to cite a major news broadcast. It's been nearly a full month since I first raised this point about YouTube in late February so I hope the editors who wish to retain the underlying information have been at work obtaining official transcripts of the relevant broadcasts.[13]

Overall, Benjiboi's participation has had several tendentious traits. I'll supply examples of the others if requested, but this presentation is already long:

  • Emphasizing the article subject's career in pornography.
  • Asserting that the article subject is or was a male escort; in other words, a prostitute.
  • Downplaying the subject's military career.
  • Downplaying the subject's journalism career.

I wish to draw the Committee's attention to Benjiboi's insistence, even here on this page, upon claiming that Matt Sanchez was an escort. Per David Shankbone's actions at Michael Lucas (director), that highly damaging assertion is to be made with particular caution even when the sources are impeccable. At Matt Sanchez it was being sourced in article text to non-notable blogs. Benjiboi fiercely defended that practice. We had several exchanges about it. Here's one example:

Durova: (I had already given examples of what sorts of blog citations would be acceptable, and why the particular one under discussion was not). Benjiboi, blogs as sources are a settled matter; I remove inappropriate blog citations all the time. That's unacceptable per both WP:RS and WP:BLP. If you have any doubts about my good faith and fairness, please take your doubts to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.[14]
Benjiboi:"blogs as sources are a settled matter" umm hardly. Just because many blogs are less than reliable certainly some are fine. Just wondering are you disputing any of the information as true? If so perhaps you could simply remove the ref that so distresses this strict interpretation as all blogs are bad thinking. Did you notice that the post in question is a video of - Sanchez conducting an interview? Please. The reality police are calling.[15]

At WP:AE I was on the fence about Benjiboi's topic ban and afterward I even offered to open a thread myself to lift his ban after one month if no further problems arose. Here is the latest repetition of that offer, where on April 20 I offered to open the request three days early.[16] Instead of replying he opened this request, where ne makes no mention of these overtures, misrepresents my involvement, and either does not recognize or does not understand the underlying policy and copyright issues at stake. That looks, unfortunately, like a preview of what to expect if his topic ban is lifted. Although I would like to support his return, his presentation renews my concerns.

One further statement for the record. I absolutely do not endorse Matt Sanchez's statements about gay people or the particular insults he has directed at some of the people who edited this article. That was one of the reasons I supported Mr. Sanchez's siteban. Privately, I strongly endorse LGBT rights (straight but not narrow). When I put on my Wikipedian hat I set personal politics on a shelf and apply dry policy analysis. I have answered content RFCs for Michael Moore, Matt Sanchez and Michael Lucas (director) on exactly the same neutral basis. DurovaCharge! 18:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Durova's comments. I'm sorry if you felt I was purposely misleading in any way. Firstly, I included you as your actions started the whole AE thread thus my ban. I didn't mean to imply that was your intent. To answer your assertion that there are "gaps", the querty content issue was focussed on blogs as reliable sources not on YouTube as a reliable source. The answer in both cases should be to source to the original broadcaster rather than the site simply hosting the content. In the discussion, in fairness, YouTube was mentioned so could be seen as where the issue arose. To my point the content didn't seem to be presented as "this sourcing needs to be corrected" as much as "this content has to be deleted". I wouldn't have added the querty blog except that it seemed terribly non-controversial to state that the Sanchez had conducted a video interview as a vlogger and here is that vlog. I still disagree that all blogs and vlogs are considered unreliable and will decline to entangle myself in copyright discussions. I also felt the suggestion that I should shop the idea of was this a reliable source around as faulty as the concensus was that the content wasn't needed and if it wasn't considered a reliable source then forum-shopping seemed innappropriate to me. I felt your statement at that time was being sarcastic towards me and I responded in kind, that was a mistake. Also, just to clarify I have no website(s) where I engage in any wikipedia activity nor do I have any interest in Sanchez past the content of the article on this site.
I do want to point out that your "offer alternative citation options" came twenty minutes after you started the AE thread. This might be simple misunderstandings on a heated talk page but if your attempt was to correct the sourcing it wasn't clear to me so I apologize.
As for your highlights of my "tendentious traits" in regards to that article his notability, as far as reliable sourcing is concerned, is tied to his past porn career, this isn't a porn bio so shouldn't look like one but for those looking for that information we should cover it appropriately and with balance. This is tied directly to his military and journalism careers. We have plenty of sources for the adult entertainment career but talk page concensus is that he is likely no longer in the military with the only reason we don't state so is we have no reliable source stating that he no longer is. As for his journalism, I don't believe I've ever downplayed his journalism career and as is evident from the querty blog and other content (including Sanchez's vlog channel on YouTube) I was trying to add more information. I don't recall doing anything but trying to stick with wikipedia standards on whether he should be called a war-blogger or whatever was most appropriate and similar discussions continued after I was banned. I even listed the blog posts added to the article as examples of his work so that interested editors could try to find some representative quotes to use.
As for his escorting I really don't care that much if he did or didn't. He said he did, the incident that made him nationally known certainly said he did and there were lengthy discussions on primary vs secondary sources. The issue seemed far from settled but you've "boldly" archived all of it so until the next person brings it up or a new source covers it it can be anywhere else but on his article. Your links about "Benjiboi's insistence, even here on this page, upon claiming that Matt Sanchez was an escort. ... At Matt Sanchez it was being sourced in article text to non-notable blogs. Benjiboi fiercely defended that practice. We had several exchanges about it. Here's one example:" is completely off-base. First that is the qwerty blog thread about Sanchez being a vlogger interviewing someone else who was an escort not anything having to do with Sanchez himself escorting; also the thrust of adding that content was to help anchor him as covering the CPAC convention as a vlogger as well as that he had been corresponding with the interviewee while Sanchez was in the war zones, none of it seemed controversial to me. Secondly, when the escorting topics were brought up, I worked toward talkpage consensus on what information to add about the escorting as well as what wording. We never had consensus and I opposed adding anything to the article until there was some agreement.
Finally, as to your offers to help lift my ban I thanked you for your support, period. I have been working on my above statement ever since the second AE thread closed and this route was presented as the only way for me to overturn an admin topic ban. This has caused me more stress than any of the on-wiki homophobia I've dealt with and I only was able to finish it today, apologies if my timing isn't to your liking but I decided months ago to take a break from my volunteering here whenever I was feeling stressed and getting banned from any article without any heads up that I was on thin ice has made me reconsider if my time has been worth it. Banjeboi 20:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of ground is covered there, so with space in mind I'll target this reply to just a few points. There was a concern among some editors that tangential mentions of other people's escort work were being abused per Wikipedia:Coatrack with ambiguous syntax to suggest that Mr. Sanchez was also an escort. At BLP articles, citation of blogs other than the subject's own is a delicate matter under the best of circumstances, and this was being handled very indelicately under adverse circumstances. If you thought my tone was sarcastic I wish you had brought the concern to my attention rather than engage in tit-for-tat. It has never been my intention to give offense, and those replies left me at a loss for what else to do. I hoped that had just been a bad day for you so I waited several weeks to pursue the matter seriously again, but obviously this kind of issue can't wait forever. If you can't trust me and won't seek third opinions, where else can I go? Most straight men wouldn't touch this topic with a ten inch pole.
Part of the problem when editorial discussion becomes too contentious is that outside opinions are harder to obtain. Here's one candid statement from earlier this month:
Cleo123: As an outsider, here in response to the notice at WP:BLPN - I, too, support the phrasing created by Durova and Abecedare. Insistence on the bizarre and inadequately sourced phraseology "embedded blogger" strikes me as an attempt to diminish sourced professional accomplishments, which is POV. Wow! I can't believe something so obvious and clear cut as the man's profession is the subject of such heated debate. Quick! Get me off of this page! LOL! Never! Never to return! LOL! You all have my sympathies!May the Wiki force be with you![17]
Lastly, I do not endorse JzG's assertion that Mr. Sanchez's personal opinions about who should or shouldn't edit the article ought to have any bearing. It doesn't matter to me (or, I hope, to the Committee) what any individual editor's sexual orientation is. What does matter is whether someone's contributions are productive and consistent with policy. DurovaCharge! 22:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coatrack concerns are certainly valid, I wish it had been brought up in advance on the talk page as other had been simply as "the article states _____" but per coatrack we should reword to _____ so to remain more NPOV. That's how we've been able to clean up a lot of other problems there. Frankly, I thought Sanchez's interviewing another blogger, on the anniversary and at the same event of Sanchez's national fame (the CPAC convention/awards), who had gone through nearly identical experience as Sanchez (conservative voice being outed as a gay adult entertainer) could have made for a good compare/contrast launching point. As for editor's being straight or any gender or sexuality it really didn't cross my mind and rarely does. I realize most people have more traditional heterosexist and gender binary ideas (people are "either strait or gay" and either "male or female") so I rarely get into those areas unless the discussion seems to be of value.
I think I covered that I had no issues with his writing/blogging/journalism career being covered, whatever career title policies stated it be termed. Pretty consistently I've advocated letting reliable sources speak for themselves as a way to stop the SPA abuse and other nonsense. I also felt we were knee deep in experienced editors lately so someone would come up with a way to deem what was most appropriate, I was certainly in no rush. As was evident from discussions like Sanchez is not a writer, I wasn't terribly bothered one way or another but moved to simply keep it accurate, organized and move on. He's a writer, yes, move on. Right below that section is Work as an escort, where my take on the whole escorting/prostitution issue is pretty evident to lean on what reliable sources state and presenting the information neutrally. Also it's fairly evident that this was an issue that many editors besides myself also felt wasn't resolved but others can judge for themselves. Banjeboi 05:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for those replies. I agree that Matt Sanchez is no saint and negative information has a place in the article. My concern is that it be properly sourced and overall balanced. This page has been a battleground far too long; I'd like to see it on the same footing as any other BLP. DurovaCharge! 10:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. I agree that it needs a lot of work still, I waited a while before I did much until I could suss out what we actually had to work with (trying to see the content through all the drama). When I started I did more simply thinks like adding sections and infobox. I've also learned to look for the overall arch on bios as well and Sanchez seems to be media person of sorts, an actor, editorializer and now doing reporting/commentaries on blogs, vlogs and apparently overseas TV. I liken him to other political commentators and think his views should be expressed with some quotes so he "speaks" for himself. To me the answer was almost never to delete content to achieve balance but add content like expanding the military and Columbia sections so the stuff Sanchez deems negative (adult entertainer) isn't lost but minimized as a part of a past career. I've said before that if he just let others build the article it would be so much better. Banjeboi 18:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The whole point of an article probation is to reduce the thrashing and tsuris associated with heated topics. It's not the faithless editors who have to worry about article probation; they get taken care of in other fashions. Good editors, however, can also cause problems, sometimes by their very presence. That their intentions are good, and that their history is sterling, does not alter the fact that their work on specific articles can be disruptive (or can be part of a cycle that leads to disruption.) My initial inclination is to let the ban stand; it's not a "black mark" against Benji, but rather a recognition that his presence on that article is causing more problems than it is worth. On the other hand, if another editor were to come to the article, and do the same sort of work Benji's been doing, Mr Sanchez' stream of OTRS requests would resume, with Benji crossed off and the new editor's name written in crayon. So this isn't about Benji, but about the material itself, which either belongs or does not belong in the article, regardless of Mr Sanchez' feelings. This means the only question for Benji is, "can you continue the edit the article while respecting our BLP, NPOV, V, etc requirements?" As far as OTRS is concerned, if Mr Sanchez' requests are valid, they should be respected; if not, they should be politely declined the first time, and ignored after that; he certainly doesn't get to dictate who edits the article about him. I can't imagine this is the first time someone has been persistent trying to get their way via OTRS; what's the usual way of dealing with repeat complainants? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motions and voting

Request for appeal: Topic ban of Thomas Basboll

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

Statement by Thomas Basboll

Raul654 has imposed a topic ban as sanctioned by ArbCom's recent ruling in the case on 9/11 conspiracy theories (see discussion at at AE). I do not consider myself a POV pusher (nor, it should go without saying, a conspiracy theorist or "truther"). I have devoted my time here (increasingly narrowly) as a good-faith single-purpose editor to articles related the collapse of the WTC, which interests me both from a technical, engineering point of view and as an episode in the philosophy, history and sociology of knowledge. I consider the WTC collapse article to be mainly an article on an engineering topic, and the controlled demolition hypothesis article to be mainly an article about a fringe hypothesis (comparable to, say, memory of water and, until recently, ball lightning, a phenomenon whose status is changing). I have edited them as such, in accordance with what I know, and based on (to my mind) reasonable interpretations of reliable sources.

I have behaved civily in all discussions, and was in this case implementing what I saw as an emerging consensus (from a week-long poll) in good faith, and explicitly noted that anyone could revert it if they thought I was jumping the gun [18]. Taking a longer view, my editing on these articles has been overwhelmingly accepted by consensus. The difference between the two versions being discussed in this particular case is very small. (This, for example, gives an indication of the difference between my proposal and Jehochman's; note that the bulk of my allegedly POV-pushing edit, namely, the merger of the overview section with the lead, has been preserved.) It is certainly a far cry from the sorts of claims that are normally associated with 9/11 CT POV-pushers. Moreover, I am willing to accept either of the two possible solutions. The purpose of the poll was to clearly identify the consensus in order to make it easier to maintain the page in the face of predictable edits.

Somewhat ironically, I had already explained this to Jehochman [19] before he lodged his complaint against my "horrendous POV pushing". I now, of course, understand why he didn't contribute to the poll. He seems to believe none of this, i.e., patient, civil ongoing discussion about the scientific status of the hypothesis, should be necessary. I look forward to hearing ArbCom's view on this matter.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

Mongo has added a number of charges to the Tango Arbitration that are probably better dealt with here. It includes a characteristically false allegation: "Interestingly, during Basboll's hiatus from editing, User:Aude was able to get the disruption free period she needed to get 7 World Trade Center to featured level. I was able to help her with some copywriting issues. It remains the only 9/11 related article to achieve FA status. Basboll made numerous comments regarding the article upon his return to editing. Aude was also able to get Construction of the World Trade Center (a peripheral article) to FA status as well during Basboll's hiatus." Clearly this statement can only begin to make sense if I had actually worked on the articles that he rightly praises Aude's work on. Well, until my departure in May 2007, I had not edited them. I've actually checked back through my contributions. As far as I can tell I had not made a single edit to those articles before my break. It can hardly be in my absence that Aude was able to bring the 7 WTC article up to FA; there is simply no basis for identifying my hiatus with a "disruption free period" in this case. MONGO next suggests that, upon my return, I began to disrupt her work. He cites discussion threads that begin here. Notice that these threads conclude with agreement reached between Aude and I. The article was simply improved. By contrast, during my most recent absence, MONGO had four months to deal with a POV tag issue he insisted on leaving in, thereby ensuring that the article would fail a GA review after I had fixed a series shortcomings not related to CTs that had been identified by the sweeps reviewer. Nothing was done until, upon my return, I raised that as obviously the most pressing issue to deal with. I was immediately called a POV pusher and troll (the cause of what is now the Tango arbitration) and it was suggested that the section, after sitting quietly in the article for four months with a "neutrality disputed" tag, should just be deleted. Here, too, the situation has been resolved after lengthy discussions ... this time in MONGO's absence (block and retirement).--Thomas Basboll (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

I didn't see the debate, but there is no doubt that Thomas Basboll's presence in those articles, while generally not egregiously uncivil, has had the effect of inflaming disputes and extending debate on matters where there is clearly a strong agreement with a few prominent holdouts, Basboll being one of same. His opinions on 9/11 are definitely not mainstream, and tireless advocacy of non-mainstream positions is one of the things I consider to be a serious problem in Wikipedia right now, so I would be inclined to support Raul's call here. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Are you suggesting that he is "incivil" in a non-egregious way? On what grounds?
  2. If there is "no doubt" that he inflames disputes please provide proofs about this.
  3. Provide proofs also of "clearly strong agreement" where debates have been extended.
  4. Personal opinions are completely irrelevant (and you would have to prove them too).
  5. If "advocacy" is so big a problem why don't you provide proofs of advocacy in this case?
  6. According to which policy your (unproved) description of the user would be enough for a ban?
Unless you will provide any supporting material yours is just a groundless personal attack.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SOUP. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is someone challenging your view of something you "consider to be a serious problem" and asking for concrete examples to support some fairly broad statements in any way comparable to a distraction tactic? I really don't see a problem with "extending debate" - no article is ever finished and available information always changes. Debate is necessary, and from what I've seen of this user (admittedly not a huge amount), he appears to debate in a relatively constructive manner. I know a lot of people don't agree with this, but I feel firmly that is important in any kind of collaborative project for exclusion to be the resort only when there is absolutely no other option. I have seen no evidence to suggest that this is the case. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

I filed the arbitration enforcement request. Truthers have been trying to whitewash Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center for quite some time, and a variety of editors have been attempting to restore neutral point of view. Id est: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] At some point people need to understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advancing fringe theories. The community has been put on notice. Enough is enough. Let the administrators do their work. User:Thomas Basboll's long contribution history shows three main types of contributions to Wikipedia: 1/ pushing a Truther POV, 2/ attacking MONGO, and 3/ engaging in various processes to support those agendas. We simply do not need single purpose policy violation accounts, no matter how polite they may be. Jehochman Talk 08:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't determine whether Bigfoot exists by polling Bigfoot believers. We follow what the preponderance of reliable sources say. Jehochman Talk 08:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Why do you speak abouth "truthers": can you prove anyone here is a truther?
  2. Your opinion about what is the due weight to give to allegedly "fringe" theories is not relevant here, it must be decided by means of consensus.
  3. Administrators have not the right to unilaterally decide what is the due weight and who did violate it. It's up to the wikipedia community by means of consensus. --Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Uninvolved Ncmvocalist

It appears that the editor who has been sanctioned has made good-faith attempts to try to find common ground among two sides - one side who feels that a certain hypothesis is labelled as a conspiracy theory, and another who doesn't. It is irrespective that I am of the opinion that it should be labelled as a conspiracy theory, because this editor in conducting a straw poll, has identified it as a conspiracy theory - whether it is in the first sentence, or the second of the article - although, the second sentence did not give enough emphasis on this I feel.

Although straw polls do not determine consensus, there was some discussion. The editor who filed the Arb-enforcement request made no attempts to participate in the discussion until earlier today, despite being invited to by the editor over 5 days ago, and editing on the article during those 5 days. In his editing, he has in fact on several occasions quoted 'consensus', but because the very policy clearly outlines that consensus can change, he should have engaged in the current discussion.

I find that there is insufficient evidence (of the sanctioned user failing to adhere to the Wikipedia principles outlined) for a sanction to be imposed in this case. However, the editor should've "been counselled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines" as per the the remedy imposed by the ArbCom - I see none being given by the admin who imposed this sanction.

I am therefore of the opinion that there appear to be grounds for an appeal here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xiutwel

It seems to me an emotional decision, blocking an editor, citing one edit.

Raul654 first neglected to give any specific reasons, and later added one edit as "the reason". onetwothree

I think Raul misunderstands the ArbCom decision, and also misunderstands NPOV policy.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • at User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing he explaines why involved editors should engage in POV disputes to make sure that the commendable POV (the government does not lie) triumphs over the evil POV's. It is clear that Raul fails to understand how policy, by following its process, leads to good articles. In stead, he starts with "the truth" and sees editors who disagree with him as "the Problem".  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by semi-involved Wayne

I do not edit the article and do not personally believe the CD theory. I do however participate in talk occasionally as I believe the CD theory should be treated fairly. Comparing the current version with Thomas' version shows a difference of less than half a sentence which is not particularly controversial and was made in good faith after discussion. If we compare Thomas' edit with the original version we see that the current version is now closer to his edit than was the original and in fact his is more critical of the theory than the original was.
There was no warning before banning and no reason given for the ban. The reasons eventually given were confusing and lacked substance. Jehochman says "We don't determine whether Bigfoot exists by polling Bigfoot believers." but this is a gross misrepresentation. The poll was of both supporters and opposition and was primarily a grammatical edit that implied no preference for any conclusion. If Jehochman equates his refusal to take part in the discussion as bias to Thomas' viewpoint then he has no one to blame but himself and Thomas should not be punished for his failure.
Given what I see I have to ask, why is Arbcom enforcement so strictly enforced that it equates to either a.) almost total control of the article by supporters of the official theory or b.) discourages neutral editors from participating? Was it the intention of Arbcom to stabilise the article by restricting editing to the “official” mainstream viewpoint to the exclusion of other minor but significant viewpoints as well as fringe viewpoints? Wayne (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:travb

Raul654 is NOT an "uninvolved" administrator

The arbitration remedy states:

"Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted)"

Raul654 is NOT an "uninvolved" administrator.

"The original 7 World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11 due to the combined effect of structural and fire damage." stating "rv - well known fact" [42]
Raul654 blocks editors he edit wars with
Raul654's did not follow the arbcom guidelines

Raul654's block is flawed, the arbitration remedy states:

"...if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process...Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to...amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators"

Raul654 did not warn Thomas before the block: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision".

arbitration remedy states:

"Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators"

Thomas Basboll used a "communal approach" in a straw poll. Jehochman lost the straw poll, which meant a majority of editors agreed with Thomas's POV. Instead of attempting to build consensus, Jehochman filed this Arbitration enforcement. An involved admin, with definite POV, then blocked Thomas.

Jehochman's evidence

The seven edits which Jehochman uses as evidence to topic ban Thomas are as follows:

  • Thomas "boldly" implementing the results of the straw poll. [52]
  • Jehochman reverting Thomas, in an argument over one sentence. In both Jehochman and Thomas's revisions 9/11 conspiracy theories remains in the sentence. Jehochman is reverted by Pokipsy76. [53]
  • Jehochman reverts anon 67.164.76.73, which has nothing to do with Thomas. [54]
  • Jehochman reverts WillOakland, and then is reverted by 67.168.160.59. [55]
  • MONGO reverts Apostle12. [56]
  • Jehochman reverts Wowest who is reverted by Dscotese [57]
  • Jehochman reverts Dscotese [58]

Only the first involves Thomas.

Raul based his ban on one Thomas edit which Jehochman complained about [59]

Jehochman's language shows that he is just as much a POV warrior as Thomas is:

  • "Truthers"
  • "tendentious group of editors"
  • "horrendous POV pushing"
  • "Truthers have been trying to whitewash the article for quite some time"
  • "The community has been put on notice. Enough is enough."

POV warriors often:

  1. label their opponents ("Truthers"),
  2. use vivid adjectives ("horrendous") to describe their opponents,
  3. make absolute statements ("Enough is enough").

Inclusionist (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I see Raul654's actions here as being in line with the AC's decision, and support them. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings

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


Statement by Avruch

I would like the Committee to please reconsider the indefinite restriction placed upon Privatemusings that prevents editing to any article that is "substantially a biography of a living person." I request that this restriction be commuted to an indefinite or time-limited parole, including: allowing blocks in line with the remedy based on edits reasonably construed as a violation of the BLP policy and restriction to 1RR for all non-vandalism edits on BLP articles.

Privatemusings, returned from his 90 day ban, has edited reasonably and participated as a member of the community in a number of policy related areas. His contributions have shown a fully improved understanding of and adherence to Wikipedia policies and norms, and Wikipedia has benefited from his presence. He has not incurred any additional blocks or other restrictions since returning from his ban, and many editors expressed during his ban and upon its expiration that his insight and participation was valuable both on-wiki and on the Wikback forum. I've even seen grudging praise about his presence on Wikipedia Review.

The link to evidence presented against Privatemusings that is related to the BLP policy is here. While the links to the di Stefano article edits are admin-only, the description does not lead me to believe that they are egregious violations of BLP policy. It is clear to me and many others that the atmosphere of the di Stefano article is particularly strained and contentious, but PM and others should not be penalized permanently for inartful attempts to edit an article whose history is unclear to newcomers. Edits to the King article are admittedly more serious, and display a regrettable lapse in judgment. However, it seems unlikely to me that such behavior will be repeated and I believe the Committee should give Privatemusings the opportunity to reform and eventually transition to an unrestricted status should his conduct remain exemplary. Avruch T 18:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Privatemusings

Yes please! I'd love an unencumbered account! I'll happily engage with any process any of you recommend; anyone have any questions, for example? I could answer some on a subpage? or expand answers to points you feel it would be good to address? - would anyone like to chat on IRC or somewhere? - let me know. I should also note that ides like a '1RR' on biographies of living people are fine with me, and in many ways are good practice, as well as reassuring anyone worried that I might leap into disruptive editing. How's about a six month '1RR'? I'm also open to any other ideas which may be floating around.

I think my case was a little unusual, and I also wonder if there's any appetite to look at the decision overall, and specifically some of the principles involved (well actually, mainly this one) - which I feel may not have been applied equitably across the board. I'll explain further if any find it relevant.

Regardless of the outcome of this request, I've got a couple of quick questions that are hopefully easy to resolve as well;

  • A link was provided at the end of my biography editing restriction and I wanted to clarify the intention of that. I'm not sure which aspects of my editing the arb.s which to define as inappropriate (one article, two, or just a general sort of thing). In particular it would be very helpful to me to have a concrete response to my posts like this one and this one.
  • If this is too soon, how long d'ya think represents good timing? I'm happy to wait as long as you like, but I'm not completely sure what will change in the interim, so would hope you might consider this now.

thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Too soon for a change. Give it some more time, please. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Privatemusings has improved his behaviour considerably since his return and if he maintains this attitude then I will definitely be prepared to remove the remaining restrictions - but we need slightly longer to show it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too soon. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give it another couple months and if behavior is still good I will give my unqualified support. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

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

Request by PHG

I am requesting that the above case be amended to the effect that User:Elonka be restricted from attacking me through abusive representation of the Arbcom decision. Elonka is trying to have me blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia [65], and is misusing Arbcom restrictions to achieve her means. Most recently, she pushed for a one-week block against me, based on a compilation of false statements and claims against me, which was implemented through a 60-hour block by an unsuspecting Administrator (User:AGK), later abandoned for a "20 hours time served" in the face of a numerous opposition here. As User:Abd summarizes, Elonka has been "exaggerating the ArbComm decision regarding PHG as if it were a weapon rather than an attempt to cool things down." [66]

Claims/evidence
  • Elonka claimed that "He [PHG] started a new subpage that is related to medieval history: User:PHG/France-Japan relations (19th century) (though the title says 19th century, there is clearly a section on Medieval History within the article)" [67]. There was never "clearly a section on Medieval History" in the article in question (now France-Japan relations (19th century)). The article actually started with a reference to the second half of the 16th century, which is certainly not part of the Medieval period.
  • Elonka claimed that I " re-created one of the pages that had been deleted via MfD: User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)", as ground to have me blocked. Actually I did not recreate deleted content as has been claimed, I only inserted a small link to an older version of an article ("Long version here") instead of the 200k content that had been deleted. I am also not prohibited from creating User subpages so the claim to block me is inappropriate.
  • As soon as I try to contribute to Talk Pages, Elonka claims that I am "not respecting consensus at article talkpages, and is instead effectively copy/pasting his old arguments and continuing to disagree." [68]. This is highly untrue, as the discussions claimed to have me blocked were either new ([69], far from being consensual (with many users actually agreeing with me) [70], or totally legitimate [71] as they had not been discussed in detail yet[72]
  • Elonka claimed the fact that I created a User subpage as ground to have me blocked: "He [PHG] started a new subpage that is related to medieval history: User:PHG/France-Japan relations (19th century) (though the title says 19th century, there is clearly a section on medieval history within the article)" [73] However, my subpages are certainly not targeted by the Arbcom restrictions, which only concern articles (as already re-affirmed by the Arbcom when a request to the contrary failed [74]).
  • Elonka routinely misrepresents my Arbcom restrictions as affecting all history-related article, when in fact I am only restricted from editing Ancient History and Medieval History articles: "This user, User:PHG is restricted from working on history-related articles. The page may look good, but the user routinely misinterprets sources. Please delete, and block the user" [75].
Requested remedy

I request a fair treatment from the Arbitration Commity through an honest implementation of my Arbcom restrictions, and protection from users who try to bend the rules to do me harm. Specially, I request that Elonka be restricted against harassing me or misrepresenting my Arbcom restrictions or the nature of my contributions. PHG (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: this statement has been refactored to within the statement length limit. — Coren (talk) for the Arbitration Committee 14:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AGK

I have commented several times on this issue. Perhaps it would be best if I reiterate my thoughts from AE: see here.

If any ammendment to be made, I feel that the most suitable one would be a clarification of the Committee's view on PHG's contributions and, by extension, his disruption. The initial restriction was very much, I feel, a message to PHG that his editing habits need to change. Rather than interpret the spirit of that remedy, and use his last reprieve from project exclusion and firmer remedies (which were very much on the table during the Franco-Mongol case) well, he has proceeded to duck around the fine points of the remedy (e.g., creating articles that fell just outside of the "medieval history" period, from which he was restricted).

I feel PHG's conduct since the initial arbitration case was closed has fell well beneath the standards expected of a project editor, and I think it harmful for him to be allowed to continue in this vein. Anthøny 12:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{extended comment by PHG, removed} I do not wish to enter into yet another round of ping-pong. Anthøny 17:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed Amendment, from AGK

This amendment proposed with a view to amending Franco-Mongol alliance to: 1/ cover all history articles, per recent gaming of the remedy's specifics, such that he is editing articles which, although very clearly related to history, are not covered by the remedy's boundaries of "medieval or ancient history"; 2/ include all pages of the project, rather than simply articles.

Remedy one of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance is amended such that, PHG (talk · contribs) is now restricted from editing and creating any pages related to history, for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.

The "blanket" nature of this proposal, in that it covers the general subject area of "history", as opposed to specific branches of it, is proposed in light of PHG's recent progression from "medieval and ancient history", to more recent, renaissance history. It has become somewhat apparent that he will continue to roam around the countless branches of history, and it is a waste of both the Committee's and the Community's time to consistently bring in additional remedies, restricting his recent area of activity.

This blanket nature is somewhat drawn from recent cases, such as (and here I flinch, at having to drag back in recent cases) Privatemusings, where Privatemusings was restricted from all BLP articles. My proposed amendment to Franco-Mongo's fairly close-to-the-bone approach has the added advantage of noting that disruption to certain topic areas will not be tolerated, and will be handled robustly.

I am also open to further chopping-and-changing of this proposal, including to include either point 1/ or 2/ (see my introduction), although I obviously think that to be less than ideal. Anthøny 18:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

PHG has certainly exhausted my patience. This request by PHG amounts to vexatious litigation. I request the arbitration committee address this dispute with greater vigor. At some point we must stop wasting time on disruptive users who show no sign or intention of improving. Can somebody tell me why we allow PHG to continue editing any history articles, or any articles, given the history of tendentious misrepresentation of sources? Is there any reason to think this is related only to Franks and Mongols, as opposed to Franco-Japanese history? flag Redflag [76] Jehochman Talk 12:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response: he is permitted to continue editing history articles, because his restriction covers only "medieval and ancient history". Hence, his contributions to France-Japan relations is not a violation of his restrictions, as the subject of the article does not fall as applicable to medieval history. Of course, that's very much gaming the system, something which I was very vocal about when he first created that article. Unfortunately, the ruling is very clear, and with regards to that article, I'm on shaky ground. Anthøny 14:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is why the ruling has failed to end the dispute. We need PHG to stop pushing novel theories of history via Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 14:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • PHG, you have demanded far more than your fair share of attention. You fought tooth and nail, forcing us to spend inordinate amounts of time debugging your Franco-Mongol stories. Please understand that this will not be repeated in other areas of Wikipedia. You have not yet acknowledged the nature of past problems, nor undertaken to do better in the future. As such, I think it is time for you to take a break from editing, to reflect on what has happened here, and to see if you want to change your approach. Jehochman Talk 16:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Abd has their own problems with disruption, including close ties to banned User:Sarsaparilla and the Wikipedia:Delegable proxy incident. Their sudden involvement in this matter, upon invitation by PHG is a very poor idea. Jehochman Talk 19:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Polak and PHG's upload log that shows repeated instances of images being uploaded without proper licensure. Until PHG undertakes to respect Wikipedia policies on content and copyright, editing needs to cease. Mentorship might be a reasonable alternative to banning. The current situation of unsupervised editing is creating a significant burden on other volunteers. Please respect our time and effort, and resolve this problem. The arbitration decision thus far has simply moved the wrecking ball from one location to another. Jehochman Talk 14:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. It is clear to me that PHG continues to build walled gardens of original research at Wikipedia. I urge the arbitrators to closely review the reference checking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Polak. For example, see this comment. Christian Polak has been cited multiple times by PHG in other articles, [77] sometimes as the only reference. [78]. It appears that the works of Polak, a businessman and amateur historian, have not been verified independently. PHG provides impressive looking references that fool a substantial number of casual reviewers into thinking that the information is reliable. See Talk:Christian Polak#Bibliography problem. PHG has been warned extensively not to do this, yet he continues full force. To make matters worse PHG has been extremely stubborn and combative when other editors point out problems. See WP:AE#Ethnic and religious provocation in particular. Jehochman Talk 15:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Could we get some motion on a motion, please? PHG has been blocked for one week, and is showing no sign whatsoever of accepting any feedback. They are heading inevitably towards an indefinite block. Decisive action now might avoid that regrettable result. Jehochman Talk 20:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel

I still support my comments here. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Shell Kinney

This is nothing more than a regurgitation of PHG's complaints during the Arbitration case that were ignored then as they should be now. I have bent over backwards to help PHG edit productively including starting a DRV for him on the article in question for him while he was blocked -- I had sincerely hoped he could stick there and edit it in a way to show that he was going to move on and instead, the first time he has no interaction with Elonka in several days, we get this plastered everywhere.

I can't for the life of my figure out why he's become so fixated on Elonka. For instance, the case where he "recreated" a deleted page with a link to the deleted material -- I was the one who found and re-deleted it -- Elonka hadn't a thing to do with the case; yet every time it comes up, he blames Elonka. No matter how many people have tried to talk to him about that particular situation, he honestly seems to think that he was right and that I was wrong to delete it.

Obviously, PHG doesn't get it. Once he makes up his mind on an issue, he seems to be incapable of accepting any feedback or other viewpoints on the issue. Combine that with misguided editors with a cause like Abd and Dreamguy actually encouraging PHG's behavior and you're looking at a continuation of all the same problems with no end in sight. I'm honestly out of ideas on how to get PHG on track -- he refuses to go work in any of the other areas in Wikipedia that have interested him before, he refuses to be civil and calm, he refuses to accept any consensus he doesn't agree with and he refuses to stop these tirades against Elonka -- I'd be interested to hear if there are any suggestions other than blocking him any time he behaves in this manner. Shell babelfish 15:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Abd's remarks: I can only assume that Abd hasn't done much work in the area or researched the subject he's discussing. There are many scholarly works available that could be used for the article that don't require searching a rare book store. Shell babelfish 03:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the proposal being voted on: And/or?? Is this suppose to mean something along the lines of PHG chooses a mentor or has to use all English readily available sources? At what point would an "and" occur? Shell babelfish 21:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Abd

I became aware of this situation through the MfD mentioned above by Daniel.[79] I noted there that the ArbComm decision in the primary case was apparently being misrepresented, in the nomination by Kafka Liz and in the first statement by Elonka, and I felt that this was important enough to warrant flagging it above the comments. This began a minor edit war, terminated when User:Fredrick day, shortly to be blocked, reverted my compromise language with a grossly uncivil comment, then reverted himself. Other editors then allowed the brief warning to remain. This misrepresentation is at the core of this dispute, in my opinion. The Committee stated that it continued to assume good faith on the part of PHG, and it did not accuse him of actual "falsification" of sources. What we see in the complaint above is an assumption that everything from PHG must be examined with a jaundiced eye. That is, in fact, blatant AGF failure, contrary to policy, and itself sanctionable.

What I would urge ArbComm to do, here, is to look at the behavior of all involved (including myself) and notice and respond to policy failures, beginning with AGF. Above, I am accused of impropriety for allegedly encouraging PHG. I seek the guidance of this Committee.--Abd (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note re comments by Elonka and question from arbitrator FayssalF: The article France-Japan relations (19th century), as might be expected from the subject, uses sources not readily available. We have before us an editor with voluminous contributions, with a few citations found suspect or misrepresented, and he created this article and put it up, a beautiful article on its face. Nothing about the article rings false to me, nor has any alleged fact in it been challenged. The matter of sources is raised in Talk:France-Japan relations (19th century) and the only ground asserted for questioning the sources is the ArbComm decision. I'd recommend reading the article and its talk page. If PHG had been found to have actually falsified sources, the matter would be different, and, indeed, a general edit ban might have been appropriate; but ArbComm pointedly avoided taking that step.

I find it quite disturbing that this article was speedily deleted based on nothing but a claim that it violated ArbComm restrictions, with PHG being blocked, as an additional result, on totally spurious grounds.[80] Notice that Elonka intervenes on PHG's Talk page, on the topic of the article and the block, with a radical misrepresentation of the topic ban.[81]. Further, in this edit, Elonka repeats a disturbing charge: That PHG is "continuing to argue at multiple article talkpages, in defiance of consensus." Consensus arises as a result of discussion and, yes, argument. If argument "against consensus" is not permitted, any consensus that appears is incomplete and biased, a rigid consensus is a fake consensus. If the argument is civil, but, say, stubborn, it may simply be ignored. It's a Talk page. My conclusion is that, while the editors in question doubtless believe that they are serving and protecting the project, the effect of their efforts with PHG is currently disruption and harassment and should cease. --Abd (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elonka

Regarding PHG's copy/paste here of what he's already posted at ANI and WP:AE, I point to what's already been said in the ANI thread.[82] As for new comments:

PHG runs hot and cold. Not all his work is bad. But even with the good work, sometimes it's hard to tell which it is, because though he writes well and uses lots of footnotes, he often still creates "bad" articles that are full of original research, violate WP:UNDUE, and sometimes use bad sources which promote fringe theories.

I also see PHG's behavior as an extreme example of a larger problem on Wikipedia. The culture here has a soft spot for article creators, or indeed any longterm editor who has a history of good contributions mixed in with the bad, such that the community tolerates disruptive behavior for far longer than I think is wise. As a visual analogy, I equate one of these editors to a tank that rumbles over the countryside, creating a swath of destruction. Yes, a few new flowers (articles) that might not have otherwise been there as soon, do grow in its wake. But to see them, requires ignoring the rest of the tank's carnage, dealing with multiple weeds that have been planted at the same time as the flowers, and attending to the injuries of other "gardeners" that were wounded during the tank's passage.

So, to reduce this collateral damage, I would like to suggest an amendment of my own. One of PHG's tactics is that as he gets challenged, he uses increasingly obscure sources. I have spent literally dozens of hours in libraries, just to research PHG's claims. Some sources were not available locally, or even via interlibrary loan. When I recently visited Washington DC, I spent many hours in the Library of Congress, just to get my hands on some of the more obscure books that PHG uses. I have also often found myself up against language barriers, as I have had to work with text in Latin, French, German, Italian, Hebrew, Arabic, and at one point I even tracked down editors from the Armenian WikiProject to translate text from Medieval Armenian. Even now, PHG is citing works that are in a combination of French and Japanese, and to make things even more complicated, they appear to be non-standard works which are not available in any American library. When I pointed this out,[83] PHG suggested going to a rare book website to purchase them (at a cost of over $100 / book!).[84]

I still think that PHG should be permanently removed from Wikipedia.[85] But, if the community still doesn't have enough stamina for that, I would at least like to see the following amendment:

--Elonka 23:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I can give a great deal more evidence about other problematic behavior by PHG since the ArbCom case has closed, such as creating articles which violate WP:UNDUE, and where he has been including inappropriate sources (of those that I am even able to check). He also appears to be linking to other articles, which, though they may seem to be reinforcing the information that is in PHG's new articles, as I'm digging deeper, I'm finding out that PHG created the older articles in the first place. Some go back to 2005, are completely unsourced, and follow this pattern of linking to other unsourced information which PHG had already planted. It's a bit complex to try and explain here in a short statement, but if the arbs want, I can pull this together on a subpage or something for review. --Elonka 00:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed amendment, from Elonka

PHG is placed on an all-topic source restriction. He must use only reliable English-language sources, which are either easily available online, or commonly available in major libraries (as can be seen at Worldcat).[86] For other sources, PHG may make suggestions on article talkpages. If consensus can be achieved, per article, that a source is appropriate to use, PHG may then proceed. But even with English-language sources, if any editor expresses a concern with one of PHG's sources, he must cease using it until talkpage consensus can be achieved on its suitability.

Statement my uninvolved User:Ned Scott

I apologies if this seems inappropriate, but I felt I needed to comment here. I would like to echo some of the above comments, that Elonka has a tendency to exaggerate things. PHG seems to be trying to work within his limits, and in a way that is acceptable to the community, but it shouldn't surprise anyone that he's not perfect. It's one thing to say "Hey, PHG, you're in that grey area again, so be careful" and another to exasperate the situation.

In other words, there may be issues here, but there may also be a lot of undue weight. Unfortunately, as a community, we're quick to jump on the back of those who struggle with issues, even when that's not a good way to help the situation. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved User:Slp1

I am disturbed by the way PHG wrote Christian Polak, bio of the author of many of the sources that he has been using in France-Japan relations (19th century). In creating this article today, PHG makes M. Polak look like a career historian,[87] when M. Polak is in fact a business consultant who does historical research "in parallel to his professional activities" (translation from the French).[88] (see page 9, sorry about the font). M. Polak's business career is entirely absent from PHG's version of the article, despite the fact that the information was available in the sources he himself used to write the article,[89] as well as simple google searches. I gather that this pattern of selective quoting of material to make a point is one that has been critiqued in the past. --Slp1 (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Srnec

I have three comments and two suggested amendments to the ArbCom decisions. Comments:

  1. I dispute Elonka's rationale for banning PHG. I don't thinking remove an editor with a generally civil record and numerous good contributions is best considering the number of editors who purposefully stir things up, are constantly uncivil, and who make next to no article-space edits and are still part of the project.
  2. In light of the numerous allegations of it, I should say that I think "incivility" a bad reason for serious action unless it is extremely abusive, which PHG's has not been. He has barely even been uncivil by the standards of some other editors who don't even have sanctions against them. Whenever we concentrate on incivility we are ourselves in danger of falling out of WP:NPA: since we are not concentrating on content but on contributors.
  3. PHG has demonstrated a problem specificalloy with WP:UNDUE, WP:OWN, and WP:RELIABLE (I wouldn't say either WP:NOR or WP:SYN). 1. He supports representing all opinions found in sources that meet Wikipedia's (low) standards. Contrary to his beliefs, this is not the crux of the NPOV policy. 2. He has shown a marked dislike for any major changes to text he writes. He creates articles in obscure topics perhaps because he knows he can de facto "own" them (N.B. pure speculation). 3. He doesn't seem to realise that not all sources are reliable nor are even all statements in reliable sources reliable. A trained historian would not make the mistakes he makes because he would read texts critically. 4. PHG copiously sources his text and I have not encountered major OR issues arisen except out of accident. 5. He has synthesised material (perhaps unknowingly), but he has not really objected to fixing this, in my opinion.

Proposed amendments:

  1. Elonka's amendation is wise (considering English-language to include any work with an English translation available). So long as there are all-pervasive source concerns with PHG's work, he should be forced to stick to more accessible sources, per WP:V. This should not apply to talk pages (where he can present his obscurely-sourced material for discussion, since obscure sources can be very good ones) or user subpages (where he can work on his obscure material, but where right is reserved to delete if the sources are determined to be wanting).
  2. PHG should not be banned for incivility unless "incivility" is more precisely defined. Same for "ancient and medieval history": put down strict guidelines so we have no more of this damned grey area, which has led to abusive and unnecessary blocking.

Srnec (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by lurker User:John J. Bulten

Amend the decision to state specifically ArbCom's view of the evidence, as this will guide the two chief combatants, as well as admins and community at large, as to what constitutes undue representation of its decision. I note mediation was closed due to "Participants' [plural] unwillingness to proceed with the mediation in good faith", [90] and I note in arbitration these two each accused the other of personal attacks, edit warring, and unfair presentation of viewpoints (not always under those heads). [91] As a first-year editor, I am still learning what WP:NPA, WP:EDITWAR, and WP:NPOV mean, and after much consideration I am still unable to discern from those pages why ArbCom judicially endorsed one party's accusations and made little to no mention of the other's. The ruling [92] briefly characterizes one party's edits wholly in terms of reference to the other party's characterization, and alludes to ArbCom's merely "confirm"ing allegations of misleading use of sources. In short, the ruling permits one to infer ArbCom found all arguments on one side to be persuasive, and none on the other side, which would seem to reflect poorly on ArbCom's impartiality and not to account for the mediator's finding of bilateral unwillingness. In its generic reply I fail to understand independently why any particular argument proposed by either side is valid or not. It would be very helpful to us newcomers to see a list of, say, three clear-cut, unequivocal examples of valid allegations in each category of behavior (attacks, edit war, NPOV) as endorsed by five arbiters, along with three clear-cut, unequivocal examples of allegations in each category which fail to rise to the level of attacks, edit war, or NPOV. For instance, I failed to discern any evidences which unequivocally rose to blatant misrepresentation, complete nonsupport, and total misuse as requested. [93] I believe this specificity not only would be eminently appropriate for ArbCom to publish, but also would greatly clarify to us how evidences differed one from another and would provide clear guidance to both parties as to how enforcement should proceed. Perhaps I am making an overture uncharitable to ArbCom's methodology, in which case I apologize and await being pointed to the proper means for handling the concerns I make obvious in this paragraph. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Found an excellent, balanced example of exactly what I mean (though I have not noted any such behavior from ScienceApologist personally). [94] While I have your attention, could you also tell me if other users beside the presenter are restricted to 500 words? Could be significant, and I didn't see that policy. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed amendment

It appears I have leave to suggest the following first second draft built from WP:AP#Final decision, though bland:

  • XXX has/has not engaged in YYY behavior. (diff of Incident 1) (diff of Incident 2) (further diffs) Repeated six times, where "Elonka" and "PHG" are each cross-combined with "personal attacks", "edit warring", and "pushing point of view". The "has not" cases would include 3 or 4 diffs presented formerly as evidence but which did not rise to the level of the disruptive behavior.
  • User Elonka is reminded of the community's limitation against conduct unbecoming to admins, particularly attacks, edit warring, disruptive editing, failure to communicate, and gross breach of trust. (responsive to FayssalF)
  • User PHG is required to provide a means for the Community to verify his sources. During the balance of PHG's one-year editing restriction, any of his mainspace edits not drawn from widely available English-language sources, as indicated by WorldCat.org, should be preceded by talkpage posting of the source in its context, and are subject to collaborative consensus as described in present remedy 4. (responsive to FloNight)

This seems responsive to the initial request. The alternative requests and proposals seem a strange interpretation of the extant remedy that PHG is encouraged to contribute to mainspace, and I repeat my call for ArbCom to provide clear characterization of its decision and this particular remedy. John J. Bulten (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC) With many thanks to FloNight, I have refactored the third point of my amendment to provide the specificity which I think any motions in this particular case will need. JJB 21:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Nsk92

I have become aware of this case only recently, while participating in an AfD discussion, currently still ongoing, for the article Christian Polak that PHG created. I will say for the record that I have never before crossed paths with PHG, was not involved in and was not aware of the ArbCom case regarding PHG and, even of this moment, am not familiar with the details of this case (nor do I want to learn about them). I have zero interest in the history of Franco-Japanese or Franco-Mongol relations and only participated in the AfD discussion because it was listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators. The AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Polak had some tense moments but proceeded relatively peacefully for a while. However, it then had a flare-up of high drama and by now this AfD has become a rather unpleasant place and I plan to stay away from it. The immediate precursor to this flare-up was an edit by PHG [95] to Christian Polak. This edit introduced a statement that Pollak was awared Légion d'honneur (Chevalier) in 1989. If true, this would certainly have established the subject's notability. However, the reference given by PHG was a site in Japanese [96]. It turned out that PHG mistranslated the content of that site and it was eventually confirmed that Polak received a lesser civil award, Ordre national du Mérite. When the mistake was pointed out by other users, PHG quickly corrected the wrong info [97]. PHG was reported to AE by User:Jehochman, quickly blocked by User:Coren and quickly unblocked by User:El_C (see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Christian Polak).

Several comments regarding this episode. Certainly, under normal circumstances, a mistake like that made by PHG in this case would not have warranted a block. However, it appears that in this particular case the editor, PHG, was on probation and was warned to be particularly careful with sources. I do not have an opinion regarding whether this block was justified, but what happened here certainly gives one pause, especially since PHG knew that this was a controversial AfD and that he had to be particularly diligent with his edits. I must say that, providing a Japanese website, without giving translation, as a source for a major French governmental award, strikes me as distinctly imprudent, even for an editor who was not on an ArbCom probation for problematic sourcing.


PHG does have his passionate defenders, such as User:John J. Bulten. I am somewhat sympathetic to their arguments that PHG was under a lot of pressure to quickly provide some evidence of notability for Polak since an AfD was filed so quickly after the article was created. But it does not really justify playing with matches next to a gas tank. The article should have been prepared carefully in a Sandbox first, and many of the current problems might have been avoided.

I must say, however, that I am less than positively impressed by the involvement of some of the PHG's prior opponents in this particular AfD. I think that Jehochman jumped the gun with his AE enforcement request and that Elonka's comments in the AfD did not particularly help to keep the temperature down.


I don't know what all of this means for this ArbCom case but I hope that we can avoid having AfDs degenerate into these kinds of battles in the future. Nsk92 (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jumped the gun? I have been waiting patiently since September 2007 for somebody to stop the steady flow of unverifiable, or verification failing material, by PHG into Wikipedia. Forgive me for being hasty, but I have already waited a very long time. Jehochman Talk 04:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Update In the AE discussion of this case, Jehochman suggested mandatory mentorship for PHG. I support this proposal. I don't want to cross-post here, so please see my more detailed comments at AE discussion. Nsk92 (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

I received a request to comment on a specific side discussion without being notified that the case itself was under a review request. This has just now come to my attention. The stricture on Medieval history needs revision because the designation is basically a European era and does not graft well onto east Asian topics. Apparently PHG is fluent in Japanese. DurovaCharge! 04:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the motion. DurovaCharge! 21:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ElC

I could support a mechanism, such as binding mentorship, that would be set up to better ensure the extended restrictions work. But I do not feel that it makes sense to block PHG indefinitely until it's up and running. Also, Elonka needs to find something else to do if she continues to be so hostile to anyone who isn't in full agreement with her. Her "request" earlier today to that I "think hard about whether or not you feel that you are genuinely suited to keep on being an administrator" doesn't inspire confidence. Thank you. El_C 05:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there were mentorship, I would support removal of the topic restrictions, as they would no longer be needed. It is clear to me that the problem is related to sourcing methodology, not any particular topics. Jehochman Talk 05:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly; that's why I didn't use the word "topic" above. It does increasingly appear to be more of a universal methodological issue, than an historiographical one (as we first thought). I think in that event, the (binding) mentorship would, in effect, be the restrictions. El_C 05:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This notwithstanding his tendency to overemphasize on Franco-*Asiatic connectedness (in general). El_C 06:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what I known best about, and am best positionned to contribute. I also wrote a lot about British people or Americans in Japan though (William Adams (sailor), Anglo-Japanese relations, Japan-United States relations), but that's less of my area. Best regards :) PHG (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant as an historiographical leaning, though maybe I could have phrased it more precisely. El_C 06:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
  • Recuse. Daniel (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse also. Anthøny 12:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked PHG to shorten his statement, at 752 words, it's well past the guideline. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I'm minded to proposed an extension to our ruling to include everything, not just articles, given the sub-page issue (which goes clearly against the spirit of the ruling, as AGK notes). James F. (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After verifying myself some sources and hearing Elonka's statement I now support James' remedy and remind PHG that a serious encyclopaedia requires serious references - especially when dealing with important subjects. PHG needs to take this essential principle to heart regardless of the fact of being restricted to an area or another and regardless of assuming good faith or not. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will also ask Elonka to let other admins deal with the situation. Her multiple interventions has not been helping this case at all. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support extending our ruling to include other Wikipedia pages, not just articles. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support James's suggestion that we extend our ruling to include everything since the disruption is not going away. Hopefully, PHG will listen to the concerns expressed by the Committee that he needs to change his approach. As FayssalF says, encyclopedia content needs to have verifiable reliable sources. Occasional use of a rare source is not a big problem, but regularly relying on sources that most members of the Community can not access is problem especially when there are more than a few disputes about the content. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motions and voting

  • PHG is required to provide a means for the Community to verify his sources. For the next year:
  • PHG is required to use sources that are in English and widely available.
and/or
  • PHG is required to use a mentor to assist with sourcing the articles that he edits. The mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. In case of doubt raised by another user in respect of a source or citation by PHG, the mentors' views shall be followed instead of those of PHG.
Support:
  1. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill 02:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Ability for others to check (easily if possible) is always important; more so if there are concerns. Added last clause to 2nd option, without which it would not actually do much since "use a mentor to assist" alone is too vague.[reply]
Oppose:

Request for clarification : Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

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

Statement by Carcharoth

Could the arbitration committee please clarify what has or has not resulted from the final principle and the associated remedy in the IRC case, namely: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC#Policy issues surrounding IRC and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC#IRC, and what is planned for the future, if anything. The principle in full is:

"The Arbitration Committee has recently been asked by Jimbo Wales to take an expanded role in the governance of IRC. The Committee is formulating policy and procedure changes based on this new role independently from this case. passed 7-1 at 03:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)"

The remedy in full is:

"Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee. passed 9-0 with 1 abstention at 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)"

Thank-you. Carcharoth (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Updated 17:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update - About a week ago, when filing this request, I contacted 13 arbitrators on their talk pages regarding this request for clarification (see here). These were the current arbitrators who were listed as active on the case, or who recused themselves. So far, four have responded: FT2, Newyorkbrad, Paul August and Jdforrester (James F). Of the other nine, eight have edited Wikipedia since I contacted them (the other one has not edited in some time and has a break notice on their talk page), but have not responded here, or on their talk page. I note that FT2 has left a note here saying that he is dealing with other issues at the moment which take priority, which is fair enough. Should we take the silence of most of the other arbitrators to mean that the committee have left FT2 to deal with this? And if the arbitration committee have done this delegation (which I would in some ways prefer to long-winded committee decisions), why can't they just say so? Carcharoth (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No such formal delegation has been made. Paul August ☎ 05:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I see Flonight has since posted a response. I will wait another week before posting here again, or longer if the arbitration committee can: (a) come up with a schedule for this request; (b) clarify what is needed here and whether any all or only some arbitrators need to respond here; and (c) agree to eventually move/restart the discussion somewhere else. What I hope will come of this is that progress and consensus will be made and documented on Wikipedia (rather than in the channel and by other off-wiki means) - I presume all those participating in the #en-admins IRC channel are happy to participate in on-wiki discussion about the channel? Some moderation of the discussion might be needed, but I think such a discussion might alleviate some of the concerns. For example, one thing that could be suggested is that anyone obtaining a cloak to the channel could be required to sign (on-wiki) the channel code of conduct as part of the sign up process. Carcharoth (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

I can state that several other channel ops and I have been working hard to take the communities views in hand when we have been discussing how to handle future behavioural issues in the channel. The first thing we've done is created guidlines for the channel which all users of the channel are aware of. These can be found here. The problems highlighted in the IRC case are mainly because members of the channel didn't understand what was expected of them and the channel operators didn't really know their role in stopping behavioural problems. The operators have now decided to take a more proactive role in the enforcement of channel standards, and all users are aware that if they start discussing people behind their backs, start being offensive or anything else which could be seen from the outside as unacceptable, they'll have their access removed. Obviously sometimes a warning may suffice, but in serious incidents, we'll remove on sight.

What we've also done is made the access list public, so any IRC user can see exactly who has access to the channel. On wiki, we've created User:Cbrown1023/Guidelines (user info) so that everyone is aware exactly who has access to the channel, and who the channel operators are. If there's a concern with someones conduct, then anyone is welcome to contact one of the ops and it will be taken extremely seriously and we'll of course keep you informed of what is happening. At present, we're currently debating the role of non administrators in the channel and whether or not they should keep their access. We've had no consensus either way up to this point, but we'll keep on going highlighting both the benefits and disadvantages.

The channel has moved on a lot since the case and although there hasn't been any direction from ArbCom, the internal running and operation has taken a lot from the case and everything is now much clearer regarding expected standards and routes for ops to take if there are problems. If people have concerns, just contact one of us. I'm sure the arbitration committee would also be willing to hear of problems if the ops haven't dealt with it. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related suggestion from Wetman
If the access list has been made public, can Ryan Postlethwaite ensure that it is entered in some acceptable fashion at Wikipedia:IRC channels, so that more ordinary Wikipedians like myself could actually access it?--Wetman (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and created a new proposed page. Please see User:Ryan Postlethwaite/IRC. This would replace the old admins channel wikipedia space page so it has to go through DRV which can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 26#Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I linked the list at WP:IRC in the header of the WEA section, some weeks ago. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Related suggestion from Lawrence Cohen
Can we get this list of users updated to seperate out admins from non-admins, with a direct 1:1 relationship shown what IRC handle connects with what English Wikipedia username? Lawrence § t/e 15:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done this at User:Cbrown1023/Guidelines (user info). I linked the ones I knew of the top of my head and non-admins are in bold. John Reaves 07:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related query by Bishonen

"Just contact one of us"..? Er, how? Why are people expected to know the way to CBrowns userspace if they have been treated badly on the channel? Why isn't there a public board in Wikipedia space (linked to from WP:AN and similar) where complaints can be dealt with by senior ops? Bishonen | talk 17:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

It should be noted that the anchored redirect WP:WEA broke when the header it redirected to was changed with this edit on 6 March. I've just fixed it, so now people can go straight to the big red box with the link to the guidelines when they click on WP:WEA. From there, they should be able to find someone to complain to. This is a work in progress, and I'm sure suggestions you make will be discussed. Any ideas for a suitable on-wiki talk page to discuss things? Carcharoth (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind me commenting here Bish, please feel fee to move it if you want. I agree that CBrowns userspace isn't ideal, but people didn't like the fact that we had a whole wiki-space page dedicated to #wikipedia-en-admins. I personally wouldn't mind it being in a more accessible location and it would be a good idea to link it more widely so that people are clear where and who to go to and the expected conduct of the users in the channel. I'm not sure a public board is a great idea for this, if there are problems, it would most likely involve passing logs to channel operators, or the channel operators getting evidence from logs which shouldn't be posted on-wiki. I personally don't have a problem with people coming to my talk page with their concerns and I'll communicate with them on wiki regarding the steps that I'm taking to resolve them - I just don't think a dedicated noticeboard is such a good idea. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment on that - that was taken care of at the same time, earlier this month. I linked the entire channel guidelines (including where to seek help and who are the channel operators) from WP:IRC#wikipedia-en-admins specifically to ensure that question had an answer, and those needing to know how to find the guidelines and help, could know.
I also added as a second measure, also earlier this month, a section to WP:IRC covering #Problems and help, and to be sure that was visible relinked it as well from near the top of the page too. It gives full details on how to seek help if there is a problem on an IRC channel. The pages they link to contain full details of every person in any kind of channel op role, on en-admins and more generally, for much of English Wikipedia IRC. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"people didn't like the fact that we had a whole wiki-space page dedicated to #wikipedia-en-admins" - that wasn't my perception at all. People didn't seem to have a problem with it - they seemed to have a problem with the proclamation that there were "special rules" for that page, that only certain editors were allowed to touch it, it wasn't subject to consensus, and that presence there was a privilege above and beyond anything else. Achromatic (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GRBerry

Given that the remedy the committee passed was that the committee would address this issue, the activity Ryan discusses, while likely meritorious, does not actually fulfill the remedy. Is there a status update as to the committee's activity? GRBerry 17:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Thatcher

First, I think this space should probably be reserved to ask the committee for an update on their views of IRC governance etc., and discussion of Bishonen's excellent question should be moved elsewhere (including my comments below, should someone be so bold as to start such a discussion).

I think a noticeboard for IRC chanops would be an excellent idea. Now, this gets a bit esoteric and lawyerish, but it seems to be the current situation that IRC is recognized as an independent creature, with different rules of conduct and methods of dispute resolution, and that Wikipedia has no authority to mandate any particular channel behavior or dispute resolution process. However, that does not mean that the chanops could not choose for their own convenience to host a noticeboard on Wikipedia. I think a noticeboard is an excellent idea because it will allow issues to be discussed by more than just the ops who happen to be online at a given moment, and it will have archives, including a record of when and why a user was added or removed from the channel that IRC itself does not provide. There already seems to be a sort of noticeboard at User talk:Cbrown1023/Guidelines.

However, hosting the noticeboard and associated policies/contact lists/dispute resolution processes in Wikipedia space presents the same problem it did before; it suggests that anyone can edit it, when in fact only the participants in IRC have a say and only the chanops (appear to) have the final say. So it may be necessary either to host the pages in project space but grant them an exemption from "everyone can edit" or to keep them in user space but raise their profile through linkage or even transclusion. Thatcher 18:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, IRC is not reccognised as an independent creature with separate and different rules. Jimbo, himslf, made this very clear here [100]. Giano (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further plea and misplaced clarification by Bishonen (but if not here, then where?)

I'm replying here to FT2's response to Carcharoth's basic question why the final principle "The Arbitration Committee has recently been asked by Jimbo Wales to take an expanded role in the governance of IRC. The Committee is formulating policy and procedure changes based on this new role independently from this case" (passed 7-1) and its associated remedy "Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee" (passed 9-0), have both come to naught. My post goes to clarifying the committee's final principles and remedies as they relate to en-admins IRC case—it's not about FT2's block of Giano—therefore I post it here, in preference to drowning it at the now extremely copious discussion of that block on WP:AE (most of it posted by FT2). Yes, I know I'm not supposed to post in this section, which is for arbs, but it seems my only chance of being heard. (I won't post again, whether or not you remove me from this spot, Thatcher. This has taken me much too much time as it is.)

Like probably most people, I feel at an awful disadvantage when attempting to discuss or debate with FT2, since he seems impressively able to write about 100 lines in the space of time that it takes your average wikipedian to write 20, and me to write 5. (And NYBrad to write 70 or so.) My efforts in the direction of debate with FT2 have always literally drowned. But I will try just once to do my own clarification. I made an effort to come to grips with the background to FT2's new guidelines for IRC (at this moment not available in CBrown's space, but mirrored at [101])—these guidelines being the only mouse that has so far been born from the laboring mountains of the IRC case, and it's final principles and remedies. The background to the guidelines, as offered by FT2 in channel to anybody interested, turned out to be an edited log of a discussion between FT2 and some 6 or 10 channel users (by FT2's own estimate) from February 25-26. I have it here. It's been edited by FT2 to remove irrelevancies, and consists–well, I don't have any counting tool that will work for this— but at my rough estimate, the discussion consists to at least 80% of FT2 himself talking, mainly describing how well the channel works now:

(Exact quote of log)
  • <FT2> irc runs well now (here)
  • <FT2> but the outside world doesnt know it
  • <FT2> we're like in wikipedia in the old days, "dont be a dick" and "no real rules otherwise"
  • <FT2> we have our sort of "unspoken code"
  • <FT2> a user who harasses here will (or probably should be) talked to or sorted out/calmed down...
  • <FT2> a user who canvasses persistently likewise
  • <FT2> these things dont much happen, we have a sort of unspoken code here
  • <FT2> its nice
  • <FT2> but the outside world doesnt know it
  • <FT2> also channel ops dont know what's okay to do, so if a dispute breaks out, like the bishonen/tony one a while back... should they act? or not.


I discussed these matters with FT2 in PM on IRC several times, before he actually sent me the above log to look at, and I was rather shocked by his descriptions of that log. Here's a snippet of our discussion from March 5, posted with permission.

(Exact quote except that an e-mail address and a couple of typos have been removed.)
  • <bishonen> may I have a copy of the full discussion of the channel? there was something about that in the header before.
  • <FT2-away> sure :)
  • its enacted now but there wasnt any controversy on it -- most folks reaction was "yeah, commonsense"
  • <bishonen> thanks
  • <FT2-away> I was just very careful to consult hugely to be sure that nobody could accidentally feel unasked or whatever. You know how it can go.
  • <bishonen> i thought there was going to be a workgroup, or the arbcom would be involved.
  • <FT2-away> I was thinking of the dispute over roillback.
  • nah
  • <bishonen> hugely?....
  • <FT2-away> the channel basically sorted it out, about 6 or 10 people, everyone was pretty much "yeah, commonsense" by the time it was done
  • <bishonen> so more people than the users of this channel were invoived?
  • <FT2-away> no...
  • <bishonen> i see
  • <FT2-away> but there are a lot of users here... and of course those include a load of people who arent often here
  • <bishonen> that's not hugely in my book, i'm afraid. but whatever.
  • <FT2-away> the concern was to clean up and ensure that issues of the past were not going to be perrennial
  • <bishonen> let me get this straight. only admins have been consulted? and only the minority of admins that use the admin channel?
  • <FT2-away> and that's much more about people here accepting norms and considering what norms they feel apply, than about asking others... most people here or elsewhere who care about irc stuff, know what the issues are or were anyway
  • <bishonen> do they?


To recapitulate: What has happened with the policy and procedures of the IRC en-admins channel since the IRC case was closed, then, is that there are now new guidelines for it in CBrown's userspace (update: no, actually at this moment in Martinp23's userspace), authored (largely) by FT2, and emphasizing how well the channel currently works.[102] The origin of the new guidelines was an IRC discussion, massively dominated by FT2 himself, on February 25-26 between FT2 and a few admins. So much for the expanded role in the governance of IRC that the ArbCom undertook in its final principle. So much for its new oversight as foreseen in the remedy it voted for. May we please have some commentary from some of the arbs besides FT2—from those that put hand to keyboard and voted for a new role of arbcom with respect to IRC—voted for changes in policy and procedure, changes to be addressed by the committee—voted 9-0 and 7-1? FloNight? Newyorkbrad? Paul August? Clarification please? Especially, clarification of that which is never clarified by anybody, but always sidestepped — the role of James Forrester as envisaged by arbcom — would be appreciated to the point of jubilation. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

What on earth does one say, reading the above - just sums up the truth of what I have been saying for weeks. Have our Arbcom anything to say to justify themselves? Or are we all to be banned for wondering, and demanding that they answer and explain themselves. Giano (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I voted oppossed to the related "principle" and abstained with regard to the related "remedy". As far as I know ArbCom has yet to take any official action with regard to either. Paul August ☎ 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by White Cat

Not that I want to stir trouble but I would like to remind people the above rule. Be careful what you post here as this is a public place to publish things. I just don't want to see anyone get banned.

-- Cat chi? 21:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that these excerpts were posted by one of the participants with the explicit permission of the other; there is no issue on that front. — Coren (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not accusing anyone of wrong doing. In the heat of the dispute people sometimes forget such things. This was intended as a good faith reminder. Nothing more or less. -- Cat chi? 00:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Orderinchaos

I'd make the point, speaking to the notes and log above, that the current en-admins channel does have a wide membership in terms of its views, and I think despite the thinking of some that the diversity of the community's views are actually well represented there. A recent incident (well documented elsewhere so no need to do so here) resulted in strident criticism of the channel's operations, and as a critic myself of the initial handling of the matter, I was happy with how it was ultimately resolved. Orderinchaos 11:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Newyorkbrad by Bishonen

in reply to NYB's opinion (moved from below)

"Succinctly"? LOL, come on, don't be so quick to dudgeon just because it's me. You're Patient Guy with everybody else, remember? Thank you for your answer. Will you clarify it a little bit more? I guess there may not indeed be community consensus that the ArbCom should exercise control over the channel, but it's my impression that there is/was ArbCom consensus for it[103] (with the single exception of Paul August). Your own support for the principle "Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee" is admittedly very hedged, being predicated on it being "unfair to the parties" to keep the IRC case open any longer (not that I quite see what one thing has to do with the other — did Paul's abstention keep the case open any extra time?) As a short version, would you agree with this description of the current state of affairs: the ArbCom is, with the exception of FT2, individually and collectively in flight from taking responsibilty for the principle+remedy in question? Are you all waiting for somebody else to fulfill the passive "input should be sought"? Bishonen | talk 01:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

"Succinctly" was a bit of self-criticism; I'm trying to cut back on the excessive length of some of my project-space posts (although I will note with a smile that I share your assessment that I will never be the longest-winded arbitrator so long as FT2 is serving on the committee alongside me).
The relationship between my vote and closing the case is that traditionally a case is not closed until all the pending substantive proposals have been voted on. The alternative to "issues relating to the channel will be addressed later" would have been keeping the case open to address them now, and that would have prolonged the case, including the pendency of remedy proposals against several editors (including yourself) that you and I were both strongly opposed to.
I fear that "in flight" could be considered an NPOV term. I have acknowledged that we have not, or have not yet, collectively followed up on the agenda item of exerting control over the #admins channel. But I am not sure that we should be criticized for not implementing ArbCom governance of the channel without some evidence that either the denizens of the channel or the community at large (the views of both are entitled to strong consideration) wants us to do such a thing. In fact, putting aside the solicitation of the views of the whole community, I am not sure what you personally believe the committee should do at this time to implement the remedy cited and exercise responsibility over the channel, if we were to approach the matter collectively rather than individually. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Diverging from the committee as collective for a moment, I certainly honor you individually for supporting Paul August's motion to dismiss the case.[104]) I'm aware of that tradition, but I thought voting against, or explicitly abstaining on, a substantive proposal counted as "voting on" it, too. No? Keeping the case open can't very well have been the only alternative to voting support to "issues relating to the channel will be addressed later". There was always the possibility of an (at the time) obviously impopular but franker and less foot-shuffling counterproposal that "issues relating to the channel will not be addressed by this committee, and as for James Forrester, forgeddabaddit. " Kicking the ball discreetly into my court ("what you personally believe the committee should do at this time") won't help either, I'm afraid. I have no straw for your collective bricks. If I had, I'd gladly offer it. But, to reverse a classic wiki-saying, [105] I'm not ArbCom's mother. Bishonen | talk 09:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
The arbcom voted to address the issues, Jimbo told you that you have the "Jimbo given" authority, now cut the crap all of you get in there and do as you told us you were going to do. 9 Arbs voted to address the issues. So far we have seen FT2 and someone called Ryan Postlethwaite talk about how there is no problem. We all know too many bad blocks have been orchestrated there, and too much discussed with non-admins and toadies, so time to clean it up. If you are too frightened to solve the problems, then dissolve the channel. Incidentally where are these 9 brave Arbs who voted to address the problem in return for placing me on civility patrol? Has there been some form of unreported massacre? I don't believe I have read any reports of it? Now come on, cut the crap and address the problem. You Arbs enjoy banning me, now you keep to your side of the bargain - or does James Forrester rule you? Giano (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Irpen

The saga over IRC is not new and the abuse grew since its inception. It first came to public light in the Fall 2006. The IRC got so frightened by the public reaction and by the evidence seeing the light that it called it a "coup d'etat attempt" (this post made my day). Shortly the mess called Giano-I ArbCom was dubbed (aptly but imprecisely) an uprising of writing admins while in fact it was an uprising of Wikipedia writing community against the Wikipedia being "run" by its self-appointed ever-chatting in secret "elite" that dubbed that very community as "fickle and ill-informed populace".

Once some facts came out in the open, the 2007 passed with IRC resisting to give ground and claiming that everything is good to much of the community disgust. However, what was originally seen as "IRC" got developed into a new mentality. This culminated in Durova case and another messy discovery of the existence of the secret "lists" run on Wikia servers where good editors were investigated the Wikipedia Review style by a newly arrived layer of self-appointed "leaders and protectors of Wikipedia". Each of these messes brought some good revelations (and good desysoppings) but their usefulness by far exceeded that.

They where eye openers. Giano-I case revealed the phenomenon, the Durova case showed the extent to which the malfeasance penetrated. It was in this context that a mysterious and never heard of user (just like the author of Giano-I case) submitted a new case (originally also dubbed Giano) which was renamed "IRC" and portrayed as the case about "warring over WP:WEA" when editors of the "fickle and ill-informed" side tried to make the page reflecting the reality while David Gerard and his friends insisted on explicit rights over the Wikipedia page and on the the hypocritically convenient and deliberate lack of clarity over the connection between #admins and the Wikipedia

The ArbCom for whatever reason accepted a case over David Gerard's WP:WEA page just as quickly as it accepted the original (Giano-I) case. ArbCom then produced a decision with a bunch of findings and remedies totally disconnected from each other. Nevertheless, the committee took it upon itself to address the IRC problems at a later time leaving the community under an impression that " Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee". Community hoped to see something meaningful, like a workgroup proposed by Flo. Later, "no consensus from ArbCom was found for this proposal" (note passive voice).

Soon the community "was told" that the adequate measures "were taken" through the channel's "self-policing" decided through "discussion" that occurred... nowhere else but at #admins itself. A paradox? I happened to have seen this "discussion". It was basically one arb/chanellop saying things and others nodding. This is a strange kind of "discussion" where an input from those "allegedly" abused by #admins is glaringly lacking. But let's see whether the channel improved and the problems are now "addressed" like we've heard time and again. Here is a random (not exclusive by any means) list of events (note recent dates) that took place at #admins and how they were "addressed".

  1. Feb. 7, 2008: Admin Moreschi roamed into a channel out of the blue exclusively to whine about Irpen. I think it is worse that he spoke about me behind my back having no courage to say things in my face than the particular word "a bastard" he chose, but that aside, he was met at the channel by a level-30 chanellop. That chanellop told Moreschi that he "probably shouldn't do it somewhere so leaky" and tried to alleviate Moreschi's worries by reminding Moreschi "Well, you've still got a block button" "*chanellop hints". This pleasant conversation had several consequences:
    1. When I confronted Moreschi about his conduct this person had no courage to respond at all
    2. However, my request for explanation did prompt a discussion at... (sigh) #admins. The discussion was not about the Moreschi's conduct though. Instead it was about "leaks" and it was initiated by another channelop
    3. Yet another level-30 channelop was present at the channel, took part in discussion and did nothing of consequence
    4. The case was finally analyzed by yet another level-30 channelop and a sitting arbitrator, (see here). The analysis called this blockshopping and a request to take it somewhere "less leaky" as an attempt to restrain Moreschi. Case thus considered "handled".
  2. March 13, 2008 an admin blocked for a clear case of 3RR came to the channel to shop for an unblock. He called his content opponents, long time contributors with a long history of content writing, "two POV-trolls". Again, the user, a long time champion of citing WP:CIV, had no courage to say things of that sort to their face, but at #admins it was considered "OK": not only wasn't he called to order, but he talked himself out of the block. Details available here and here
  3. March 14, 2008, an admin who is widely active in wikipolitics (an arbcom clerk, no less, among other things) called a female user "a bitch" (in her absense) over her attempt to draw attention to her pet project through posting a call for participation at another user's talk (she later reverted that). At this time, the admin was politely asked to cut it by an arbitrator who was at the channel. The admin's response to the call to order was defiant, he claimed that he would have said the same in her face. There is no evidence that the said admin went ahead and said this to her face, which I think, although revolting, would be less objectionable than doing so behind the woman's back, but that maybe just me. The admin was not sanctioned in any way although it would have likely prevented an incident below that took place just hours later.
  4. On the same date, an IRC admin who happens to be a [former?] "volunteer Communications Coordinator at the WMF" called an absent non-admin user "an idiot and a moron" over this, perhaps a gullible but honest mistake without a doubt. There was no action at the channel
  5. Mar 25, 2008: A different but a very IRC active admin who tried to bait Giano with "civility policing" warnings and questions had his comments removed. He ran to the channel asking "someone else" to help "to stop fucking with my questions to Giano so I dfon't have to edit war?" [sic] Is it just me or others see a double paradox in this all being over the civility policing itself (1) and the help being asked so that "[he does]n't have to edit war" (2) ?

(To avoid more red faces, I did not name some of the users and only provided the names in the cases that have been already discussed onwiki).

Now, we clearly see that the channel remains abusive. We also see that the despite some claims to the contrary, the current system of "good ombudsmanship" does not work. One does not need to be exceptionally smart to explain why:

  1. This whole idea of ombundsmanship by "good" ops of such closed media as checkuser log and #admins can only work with proactive ombudsmans since affected users usually don't know about being abused. So, channelops have to act vigilantly upon each case of abuse even if they found out purely by accident. Otherwise, it is all meaningless.
  2. The corrupted medium cannot be fixed from within by definition. Attempts of outside reform are vigorously thwarted but not by the "community", as some suggest, but by no one other than the channel's regulars
  3. This all continues for so long due to a deliberately maintained ambiguity of the channel's status that allows those who shared David Gerard's views and preferences to both claim the cake and eat it too. Not only attempts to improve the channel meaningfully are thwarted, the attempts to disconnect the channel from the Wikipedia are thwarted too. In a bizarre twist, the attempts to subject the channel to a meaningful WP oversight are also thwarted (and again only by the channel enthusiasts.)

I am sure that immediately upon my posting this will be discussed at the channel whose name you guessed right or even at one of the other "less leaky" channels. Surprisingly, I predict that the discussion will be again not on the substance but on the leaks themselves, just like in the Moreschi's incident.

We walked a long way since the Fall of 2006. On one hand we are by far better aware that backroom activity is thriving. OTOH, more people are now involved. A whole bunch now are on some channel: the #admins, "that other less leaky one" or one of its twins. Among those who are not (as well as who are) a whole bunch are on some "lists", yet unpurged Arbcom-L, a second (or third or more) Arbcom-L, the WR-style "investigations" list, etc (note: I do not have anything against the anti-harassment list particularly if it is held on topic). This list/channel tradition in addition to a direct devastating effect on the project, created a secondary effect. There are now POV-pushing and nationalist e-lists and IM networks. Instead of wikiprojects (many of which are dying), we have IRC-projects that are not transparent (e.g., the USRoads IRC related to another recent Arbcom case.) This atmosphere procreated by #admins is now corroding the good of Wikipedia.

Yes, people can (and will) talk privately. But we should not encourage it directly and, most importantly, should not sanction abuse at the officially affiliated IRC channels (by refusing to act or pretend that all is well), or disclaim the affiliation but refuse to dissociate either (cake have/eat) procreating this deliberate, hypocritical and morally indefensible limbo.

Clean up the #admins in a meaningful way or remove all links to it and let the folks have their chat, just like the team tags do! This all are not new ideas and have been stated in some form multiple times. However, please don't talk the "channel is now good and reformed". It just does not cut it and the editors would not believe such claims anymore anyway.


Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Good questions by all, and I'll have a go at an answer, but it probably won't be brief. Others will obviously have their view too. Firstly, some background reading for anyone unfamiliar with matters - and that includes a number of people who might feel they are familiar. I tried to describe the main points of the background on IRC as I see it (both sides) at: WP:RFC/IRC channels#Comment by FT2. It's "essential background" on the issue and dynamics, and forms the context of the decisions and any reply.
In the meantime I'm fitting drafting a fuller reply in between working stuff in my wiki-in-tray, as well as ever-present real world matters. I'll try to get it posted later today but it could be tomorrow or even a day beyond. That's unavoidable in a way -- the question actually asks for a short report in a way, rather than the usual simple opinion, since "measures taken" are meaningless without an understanding of the context, the disputes, and the various perspectives involved. And of course, a few have very strong views which in fact don't competely match reality, and that will be tricky to explain to them (as can happen in any dispute). So given the subject, it needs to be a bit more thorough. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update - events were rather busy here last week, as noted (and here too). This last few days I've been more involved in pushing to 'go live' on BLP-related matters that will help BLP subjects (members of the public). Prioritization. Hence a delay. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Newyorkbrad:
I will respond as Bishonen requests, while trying my best to heed her implied request that I do so succinctly.
Personally, I have not played a role in the governance of #admins or any other IRC channel, although I log into the channel from time to time (less often now than I did a few months ago, as it happens). Frankly, I think I am not alone among the arbitrators in not yet figured out quite how best to implement Jimbo Wales' request that the Arbitration Committee play a new role in overseeing channel governance. Nor is it clear to me that there is community consensus that the ArbCom, as such, should exercise control over the channel. Not only does there remain a lack of clarity as to the relationship, if any, between Wikipedia and the "Wikipedia" named IRC channels, but there remain very mixed views as to whether that lack of clarity is unacceptable, tolerable, or affirmatively desirable. Nor has there been further discussion so far as I am aware concerning the role of Jdforrester in this regard. As reflected in his contribution history, James has had to take some extended wikibreaks this year for real-world reasons and to the best of my knowledge has not been a participant in any matters related to the channel(s) for at least several weeks.
In the absence of a committee decision or consensus on how to proceed, individual arbitrators have tried to take the lead: first FloNight, by proposing the creation of a work group (a proposal that did not attain critical mass to go forward), and then FT2 with his proposal and adopting of channel guidelines. Other proposed initiatives to address concerns about the #admins channel, such as the suggestion that the access of everyone who is not an English Wikipedia admininstrator be revoked, have not attained consensus among users of the channel, and the new chan-ops have apparently decided not to implement them over widespread objections. The Arbitration Committee as a whole was not the decision-maker on this or any related issues. It bears note, however, that at least one controversial former participant in #admins, Tony Sidaway, has permanently relinquished his access to the channel and my sense is that there is no prospect of such access being restored save in the unlikely event he were to have a new and successful RfA.
If there is a perception that the committee needs to act on its adopted remedy to address issues relating to the administrators' IRC channel, then community input should be sought regarding what changes, if any, should be made. On whether this should be done now, or whether some time should be allowed to pass so we can judge whether the new guidelines have a salutary effect as sought by FT2 and others, I have no strong view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recused from the Arbitration case for obvious reasons; since the case closed, I have been asked by a group of people who I judged (in my rôle as IRC Group Contact) to be representatives of the #wikipedia-en-admins community to carry out a few actions. However, I am (as intended) hands-off and, as Brad mentions, I have not particularly participated in any discussions regarding the channel's organisational aspects. James F. (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by FloNight.
By custom, and widely supported by the Community and the Arbitration Committee, the Arbitration Committee is not a legislative body. We do not write policy for the Community except as it directly relates to the Committee's procedures and practices. The Arbitration Committee's role is to assist the Community in settling disputes where user conduct issues are stopping the Community from making thoughtful consensus decisions about content or policy, or when user conduct issues are seriously disrupting the Community in other ways. Traditionally, the Arbitration Committee is the source all involuntary removal of administrative tools for misuse of the tools.
My interpretation of Jimbo's comment is that he is stating his view that the Arbitration Committee has the authority to settle user conduct problems that occur in #wikipedi-en-admins, if the the usual dispute resolution processes in this channel does not work. I do not think that he is suggesting that the Arbitration Committee is charged with writing the policy for the channel or to be involved in the daily administration of the channel. His request that arbitrators have an influence over the daily administration of the channel is also noted. (This is my interpretations of Jimbo's comments, I realize that other interpretations are possible.)
Since misconduct in the #admins channel might be related to the use of administrative tools or possibly involve a lack of decorum that is expected of Wikipedia administrators, it is reasonable to think that an arbitration case might be warranted if a serious type of administrative misconduct occurs.
At a minimum, in order for the Arbitration Committee actions related to the channel to be reliable and effective, the Committee needs an accurate record of the alleged dispute to compare with established channel guidelines. Prior to the start of the IRC case neither accurate logs or channel guidelines were available for our review. Establishing these were a priority and the first action taken.
I would like to note that other methods for establishing Community consensus regarding #admins have been suggested but none have received the level of support for Community to take action on them at this time. Other suggestions related to other issues related to Wikipedia IRC are also noted. I want to make special note that the Committee received comments on site and by email from editors who primarily edit other Foundation projects that expressed opinions about the Committee's relationship to all Wikimedia Freenode IRC channels. (My comment follows.)
  1. A Working group focused on establishing policies that adhere to joint Wikipedia English and IRC standards of conduct. (Not enough support for a separate body to write new policies. I'm uncertain that this is needed.)
  2. Establish/review user conduct guideline for all Wikipedia English related IRC channels. (Not enough support at this time. I support a discussion about the merits of this type of a review.)
  3. Chan op elections on Wikipedia English for #admin channel. (Not enough support and uncertain that this is needed.)
  4. Requiring that the current chan ops read and agree to enforce #admin channel guidelines. (Suggestion has not been widely discussed as far as I know so I'm unclear it has been rejected. I support this idea.)
  5. Monitor all Wikipedia English related IRC channels for user conduct issues with logs and other means of observation of conduct. (Not received adequate discussion since Jimbo's comments regarding ArbCom's relationship to IRC.)
  6. A notice board for concerns about IRC channels to be discussed. (Not enough support at this time for consensus to establish it and have chan ops available on the notice board.)
  7. Monthly meeting on site to address IRC related concerns. Possible in connection with a noticeboard. (Not consensus for the need.)
  8. Close #admin. (No consensus.)
Future Committee action for consideration:
  1. Update Arbitration Committee policy to reflect a consensus agreement of Jimbo's statements about IRC.
  2. Continue to in listen to the Community for suggestions about the best ways that the Arbitration Committee assist with IRC related issues. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motions and voting

Special enforcement

The editing restriction imposed on Giano II (talk · contribs) in this case shall be subject to special enforcement. The Committee shall name up to five administrators who, together with the sitting members of the Committee, shall act as special enforcers for this restriction. Only these special enforcers shall be authorized to determine whether a violation of the restriction has occurred, and to issue blocks if one has.

Any administrator that reverses, modifies, or otherwise interferes with a block imposed by one of the special enforcers under this provision shall be summarily desysopped.

This provision shall supersede the existing enforcement provisions in the case.

Support:
  1. Some moderation would be good here. Kirill 02:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think this would be fairer all round in the exceptional circumstances. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Might work; certainly nothing else has. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it makes no difference I will not be acknowldging this illicit sanction. Giano (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Comment:
Kirill, thank you for listening to my concerns about the Committee's existing editing restrictions on Giano, the way that his editing is being evaluated, and the manner that the Committee's sanctions are being enforced. We need to make it clear that administrators that block Giano would be subject to summarily desysopping, as well as those that unblock him. (More later). FloNight♥♥♥ 11:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of desysopping blocking admins, do you mean those who block specifically under the civility parole, or in general? I have no problems with the former; and my only concern with the latter would be the question of how to effectively inform the admin community of the matter. Kirill 00:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both. I want to make it clear that a limited sanction by the Committee should not interpreted in a manner that lowers the threshold for blocking an user with many good contributions EXPECT for the specific problem that the Committee is addressing with our remedy. I do not think that a single administrator should take it upon themselves to block an user for conduct that the Committee can not agree to address through ArbCom sanctions. In the case of a high profile user, I think that this is an important issue because many administrators are marginally familiar with the user and the situation around them. As a general rule, I think that administrators should be extremely slow to block any user with many, many good contributions because it has an adverse effect well beyond the length of the block. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification/amendment: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

Statement by Moreschi

It is not clear to me whether the "area of conflict" for ARBAA2 is solely Armenian-Azeri articles, or whether it includes Azeri-Iranian/Iranian/Turkish articles, as I think it should, given it was these Perso-Turkic disputes that was partly responsible for kicking off the arbitration case in question. Going back over my little list I find a good number of Perso-Turkic arbcom cases: given this, I don't think it's unreasonable to extend, if necessary, the Armenia-Azeri discretionary sanctions to include Azeri-Iranian/Armenian-Turkish/etc. Just to clarify, I think the "area of conflict" for discretionary sanctions should be "articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area". This accords with {{Armenia-Azerbaijan enforcement}}, but there seems to be dispute over the matter, not to mention confusion. So, do the discretionary sanctions apply only to Armenia-Azeri articles, or are we permitted a broader scope? Moreschi (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishkid64

I have no problem broadening the "area of conflict" to include Turkey and Iran. The only reason I brought up this issue was because Moreschi reworded the AA2 remedy without consultation or clarification from ArbCom. In response to bainer's comments, I must disagree with his interpretation of the two areas of conflicts. To me, "Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts" just refers to Armenia and Azerbaijan, while the other area of conflict covers Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Iran. The latter is not the same, as it addresses topics covered in separate ArbCom cases. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 01:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Folantin

My understanding is that the sanctions should apply to Iran and Turkey too as they involve related conflicts (particularly the Persian-Azeri/Iranian-Turkic edit war and issues relating to the Armenian Genocide). One user, ChateauLincoln (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), has already been restricted under these sanctions simply for edit-warring on an article about an Iranian city which has little to do with Armenia-Azerbaijan. I think the AA2 remedy should be reworded in line with the template to clarify matters. --Folantin (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alex Bakharev

I am against broadening the scope of the remedies. The intended scope of the arbcom and remedies was always Azerbaijan and Armenia and related issues, while there might be problems on Turkey and Iran articles but they were outside the arbcom scope. If we include Turkey and Iran we get a huge geographical and historical areas covered by a very few (often tendentious) editors. If we include it to the scope we could easily get all the active editors there banned on a whim. We should also remember that the buck does not stop here. We have huge Turkey-Greece, Turkey-Kurdish, Kurdish-Arab, Iran-Arab, Iran-Afghanistan problems so why not include Arabic, Greek and Afghani editors as well, then we would notice Arab-Israeli, Greek-Macedonian, USA-Arabic editorial conflicts and we would broad the scope of the remedies to the half of the wikieditors. Lets not extend the scope of the remedies on a whim we need a line here Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by White Cat

I think the arbcom remedies are far too harsh. There currently is a martial law in the articles covered by this case making it very unpleasant to make any kind of edits. Particularly in experienced new users are bitten to death. Also good users avoid these articles due to the near-malicious attempts to abuse the remedies. So you are pretty much left with a group of disruptive users battling each other editing from multiple sockpuppet accounts. Of course this is an oversimplification of the issue but still something to think about.

Really disruptive users do not obey the arbcom remedies and edit through sockuppets. While reviewing logs for the case below I noticed the block log of Fadix which was quite recently reset making it the 4th reset. Such users should perhaps be indef banned for good. I gave Fadix as an example pretty much randomly, any other ban evaders should share the same faith.

Rather that expanding the scope of the case, users that edit disruptively should be penalized for gaming the system. The second you expand the scope disruptive users will find a new topic to disrupt, away from the remedies in question.

Also, based on my experience I feel several of the involved admins are far too involved and are unable to make sound judgments. It might be necesary to review their conduct.

-- Cat chi? 21:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

  • Remedies 1 and 2 can be narrowly read in such a way that they seem to cover different articles for different editors. The amended remedy did not redefine the scope of the case, and only says, "area of conflict." However, the last time this issue was brought before the committee, the answer was that it was the intent of the committee that the same scope and remedies apply to all editors, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Clarification request October 2007. Thatcher 10:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been inactive for nearly an entire month. I move to archive this in 48 hours unless there is some new activity. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The January motion essentially substituted in our more recent boilerplate for general discretionary sanctions; it made no change to the original scope of the discretionary sanctions, which was "articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts". For the original supervised editing sanction the more explicit wording "any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area" was used, though to me those are exactly the same, the latter merely being more precise. --bainer (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the wording has to be tightened. Obviously the case was written to control the AA problems and the effects thereof, meaning clashes between A or A against Iran or A or A against Turkey. As the wording stands, something which does not have AA as a common factor, eg, something about the Hittites or even some ancient archaeology like Ephesus or Ahmadinejad and Jews can be put under this sanction if a dispute arises. I think it'll have to include the provision of "Turkish and Iranian history and ethnic issues that are related to Armenia and/or Azerbaijan. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Clarifications_and_motions&oldid=207496047"