Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChrisO~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 18:41, 19 June 2008 (→‎Questions by ChrisO: - please archive this, clerks!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 8 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Request for review of controversies of WP policies on the Evolutionary psychology talk page

Initiated by Memills (talk) at 17:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Talk:Evolutionary_psychology#NPOV_dispute

http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Talk:Evolutionary_psychology#Epistemological_criticisms

http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Talk:Evolutionary_psychology#Support_for_.22Controversies_Page.22_as_separate

Statement by Memills

As documented in the Talk Page links above, there is currently an unresolved controversy regarding the structure of the Evolutionary psychology (EP) page, as well as the Evolutionary psychology controversy page. There are conflicts regarding what are appropriate interpretations of WP policies. The specific issues involved include whether these pages violate these policies:

NPOV
Content Forking
Controversy Pages

The core conflict seems to be this: On a scientific topic, what degree of weight and space should be given to non-scientific critiques? Several evolutionary psychology professors who have worked on the EP page, including myself, have argued that essentially non-scientific (philosophical, religious, political, etc.) criticisms should, on the main EP page, be given brief mention only and/or link to a page(s)that specifically reviews such fundamentally non-scientific perspectives. I have suggested that this is an appropriate policy, and that it is also reflected in the content and structure of the evolution page.

I am requesting a review of the issues discussed in the Talk Page links above to help to resolve these issues.

Further, I am requesting a review of Viriditas' tone regarding these disputes on the talk page links above, which I perceive as, at times, overly confrontational and troll-like. It also appears to me that Viriditas often engages in "wikilawyering" as a strategy to promote non-scientific content on the main EP page. Memills (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Viriditas

Memills is a WP:SPA engaged in a long-term content dispute on evolutionary psychology since 2006, and creator of a WP:POVFORK called evolutionary psychology controversy. The page exists to segregate and confine all criticism of EP, almost none of which appears in the main article. Multiple editors on the two talk pages have objected to the lack of neutrality as a result of this content fork. During the first week of June, I became actively involved in this page when I noticed multiple accounts removing criticism from EP and reverting to a preferred version, and subsequently filed the appropriate reports on WP:AN/I,[1] WP:RFPP,[2] WP:NPOV/N,[3] and a WP:RFCU. Since that time, Memills has stopped edit warring, but has resorted to personal attacks, using them to distract from the NPOV issue under active discussion. Aside from the egregious behavior, which I have mostly ignored, this is a content dispute that is largely confined on the talk page at this time. Several editors have come forward to help work out a solution, however Memills has been intransigent in his position, going so far as to WP:CANVASS off-wiki support; see Geherg (talk · contribs). Progress has occurred with reasonable editors like EPM and Ed Hagen engaging in helpful suggestions and discussion, and changes are being worked out on the talk page to resolve this content dispute. Major diffs documenting edit warring and removal of criticism can be found here, although I have not yet collected the more recent and numerous PA diffs. Viriditas (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/1)

  • I'll neither accept nor decline until an actual summary of the issue is put here, rather than pointers to talk page discussions. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. NPOV requires that all significant views be addressed, but doesn't prescribe the weighting. POV forks are deprecated. "Summary style" is in the MoS, and is therefore a guideline, so that splitting out detailed discussions is in itself no bad thing. These are reminders of the basic landscape for writing on Wikipedia. Above and beyond that, the ArbCom isn't going to wade in on content issues. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject per Charles Matthews. From what Memills gives in his statement it appears to be a content dispute; I note the additional claims of editor misconduct but I don't think things have yet come to a stage where we would be justified in opening a case. Further work on the earlier steps of dispute resolution may still be helpful. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 8 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.


Current requests

Request for appeal: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

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

Statement by ChrisO

I wish to appeal a page ban applied by Elonka after I removed an obvious copyright, BLP and NPOV violation from an article. The background is as follows:

  • Muhammad al-Durrah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) concerns a controversy that is currently the subject of libel litigation in France as well as an off-wiki campaign that accuses several individuals of criminal and professional misconduct. Personal abuse like this and death threats have been directed against some of those involved. I have monitored the article for BLP reasons since April 2007.[4]
  • On 10 June, Elonka stepped in to mediate, impose editing restrictions and lift protection. [7] I fully accept that I overstepped the restrictions on a couple of occasions through sheer frustration, as noted by Elonka.[8],[9],[10].
  • On 13 June, Julia1987 posted unsourced allegations on the article talk page that an individual mentioned in the article was a drug dealer who had been attacked by a drug gang.[11] WP:BLP requires the removal of "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" from talk pages and articles. I therefore redacted them and asked Julia1987 not to post unsourced allegations in future.[12]
  • On 14 June, Julia1987 made a series of edits in which she deleted some sourced material and added essentially the same allegations, this time sourced to this pirate web video, undated, unsourced, translated by an unknown individual, on a video sharing website. Julia1987's edits stated the allegations as proven facts.[13]
  • WP:BLP requires that "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that ... relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability". WP:COPY requires that "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work". Elonka's own restrictions state that "If something is added that is unsourced, that is obviously troublesome (such as very biased or potentially untrue), it can be deleted on the spot." [14]
  • I therefore removed Julia1987's addition and restored the deleted material.[15] In hindsight my edit summary was poorly written and did not make sufficiently clear that the removed material was a BLP and copyright violation. As WP:BLP mandates that "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals" (by extension the same would apply to a 0RR regime), I did not consider this to be a revert.
  • I was shocked and surprised to find on 15 June that Elonka had banned me for one week from the article's talk page and thirty days from the article itself.[16] Elonka has since restricted Julia1987 for deleting sourced content in the same series of edits as the BLP/copyright violation [17].
  • I have since unsuccessfully sought to resolve this with Elonka on her talk page. Elonka has argued that my edit was an impermissible reversion and constituted "edit-warring", but has not acknowledged any of the NPOV, BLP or copyright issues that I have raised.[18] Wikipedia's BLP and copyright rules cannot be overridden by an individual admin's restrictions, and an admin-imposed 0RR cannot supersede the long-standing rule that the removal of BLP violations is not counted towards reversions. Elonka's action has the unfortunate effect of penalising a good-faith effort to remove material that indisputably violates BLP, COPY and NPOV. This risks sending a message to editors that BLP doesn't matter and attempts to uphold it will be penalised.

I would therefore be grateful for outside views on this matter. Please note that I fully support Elonka's mediation efforts; this unfortunate misunderstanding should not be taken as criticism of the rest of her work on the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Elonka's comment below, I couldn't source Julia1987's allegations to anything other than the pirate video, an unusable source which had to be removed. BLP requires us to reliably source statements about living people ("Be very firm about the use of high quality references"). It wasn't possible to remove the unusable source while leaving in place an unsupported, potentially libelous claim - that would have been a BLP violation in my part. The only recourse was to remove the claim and the unusable source. I'm also not sitting this out because of the unresolved BLP issue and the chilling effect Elonka's action is likely to have on any future efforts to ensure that BLP is followed. We need a clear statement on whether or not editing restrictions can override BLP and copyright enforcement. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(added) I have proposed a compromise to resolve this matter (User talk:Elonka#Proposal). If an agreement can be reached, I will be withdrawing this appeal. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eternalsleeper

I've been watching these discussions from afar, as I'm way too busy with RL to contribute to Wikipedia on a solid base. Elonka has been reasonable and helpful in moving the page forward, though it would be even more helpful if people stopped making sarcastic and pejorative comments on the talk page, directly and indirectly calling each other's position into ideological questioning. I haven't been following up on the page with enough persistence to make any further comment but I felt a vote of confidence in Elonka's efforts was due. Eternalsleeper (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elonka

Personally I think that ChrisO is wasting his time here, but this appeal might actually benefit from an ArbCom review, as a few editors have been sharply critical of the conditions for editing that I placed on this article. So I wouldn't mind hearing from ArbCom as to whether or not I have been working in accordance with the Discretionary Sanctions that they envisioned in January. To describe the situation in a nutshell: ChrisO, an admin who was participating as an involved editor, was edit-warring at the Muhammad al-Durrah article, which is within the scope of the Palestine-Israel articles ArbCom discretionary sanctions, and had been in a state of dispute for quite awhile. I, as an uninvolved admin (and member of the ArbCom-appointed Working Group on ethnic and cultural edit wars), decided to take a look at the situation, and chose to place a civility and 0RR (no revert) restriction on the article. Most editors complied, but ChrisO kept reverting. Since he's an admin, I tried to give him lots of leeway, but it's obvious that he felt that the restrictions were for other people, and not for him, and he kept on with warring and incivility, such as referring to loony conspiracy theories. So I gave him a steadily increasing set of cautions.[19][20] [21][22][23] [24][25] After his second revert,[26][27] I told him clearly that if he did one more, he risked being put on tighter restrictions.[28] The next day, he reverted again,[29] with a misleading edit summary of "blatant POV pushing" (his edit summary didn't describe it as a revert, but it was clear that he had cleanly wiped out 8 intervening edits, back to his own last version.[30]) I then put him on (what I felt was) a mild ban of avoiding the talkpage for one week, and avoiding edits to the article for one month.[31] He immediately started wikilawyering with multiple messages to my talkpage about why he was allowed to revert,[32] and then he came up with this after-the-fact "BLP" angle,[33] saying that it excuses his total revert. I disagree. The case is pretty simple as far as I'm concerned, and has nothing to do with BLP. ChrisO was edit-warring, he was told to stop, he didn't, I put a brief page ban on him.

I would also like to point out that when I first learned of the situation, the article was already protected, the talkpage was in the middle of a severe dispute, and ChrisO was begging for an uninvolved administrator to help out. When I offered my assistance, he said it would be appreciated.[34] I am proud to say that since I placed my conditions on the article on June 10, the article has become much more stable, with some very constructive conversations going on at the talkpage. And all of this was accomplished with no blocks and no page protection. Instead, three editors (two new editors, and ChrisO) were placed on temporary bans (see our admin log), and everyone else is back to work. I acted in the best interest of the project, and got rapid control of a situation that was in near chaos, with only very minor course corrections on my part. I wish that ChrisO could recognize that my system works. That he is continuing to escalate and is now trying to spin this as a BLP issue, is disappointing. There were many ways that he could have edited the article to remove anything that he found problematic, by changing the text rather than just reverting. It is also disappointing that he's going to the trouble of filing what will probably be a lengthy appeal, which will probably take weeks to resolve. I had pointed out to him that an easier route would be to simply avoid the talkpage for the rest of the week (until June 22), and then if he resumed participation in a civil and constructive manner, that I would consider lifting the article editing ban early, rather than requiring that he sit out the full 30 days. I've already done this with one of the other editors, Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs), who had been banned for 90 days. We instructed him to work on other articles for awhile, and he did, so we lifted his talkpage ban to allow him to resume discussions. But evidently ChrisO would rather stir things up here at ArbCom for a few weeks, rather than just waiting until the weekend to participate at talk, so here we are. --Elonka 23:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carcharoth

Just a brief comment here. Elonka's system is interesting, and is in fact similar to what I have advocated elsewhere. I'm glad to see that some of these (rather obvious) ideas are at least being put into practice. I am concerned though that sometimes it can end up looking like some individuals (in this case Elonka) are the gatekeepers for the article. To avoid this, I suggest a system of rotation, whereby the uninvolved admins move on to different areas and different articles every few months. This will ensure things do not go stale, that grudges do not fester and build up, and that the admins involved get a fresh look on different articles rather than deal with the same things over and over again (ie. avoid burn out). This would also address the perennial question of whether admins are truly uninvolved and committed. If the admins in question are uninvolved, then they will not mind moving on a different article every few months. Possibly all this has been suggested elsewhere. If not, please do pass it on to whatever board is considering these things this month. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Canadian Monkey

Elonka has done a commendable job of stepping into a controversial article and, through the imposition of strict editing conditions, eliminated edit warring while allowing for continuous improvement of the article. As she notes, ChrisO was given plenty of warning about his behavior, and much more leeway was given to him (presumably because of his status as an admin) than to other editors, who were subjected to similar sanctions for behavior that was, in my opinion, much less disruptive than ChrisO’s. He has clearly edit warred on the page, and reverted on multiple occasions, despite being notified of both the 0RR restrictions and the general ArbCom decision related to I-P articles.

The "BLP" issue is a Red herring. As Elonka notes, ChrisO came up with the "BLP" angle [35] after the fact, and used it as an excuse for a revert that encompassed much more than any potential BLP issues. I’d like to highlight he fact that this is apparently a common modus operandi with ChrisO. On May 23rd, he was reported for a 3RR violation by an uninvolved editor on the same article (prior to the recent restrictions and Elonka’s involvement). He did not claim he was reverting BLP issues in any of his 5 reverts, 3 of which consisted of removing "Category:Violence in media", which is clearly pure edit warring over a content issue that has nothing to do with BLP. But once the 3RR report was filed, he suddenly came up with the "BLP" angle, to excuse his behavior ex post facto, and without pointing to any actual BLP issues that his reverts were aimed at.

His behavior on this article has been problematic from the get go. He has abused his admin privileges by posting warning notifications on the Talk pages of all those who opposed him, even though he was an involved admin. This behavior was found problematic by several uninvolved admins ([36], [37],[38]) and he was told it was improper (though not sanctioned for it).

Unable to get consensus for his views on the Talk page of the article, he has engaged in egregious forum shopping, seeking to get his opponents banned or otherwise sanctioned and his own actions vindicated, on no fewer than 6 different venues: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]. In fact, this most recent appeal follows on the heels of yet another appeal, his 7th (!!) this time here, after he had been told by the responding admin that “I would tread on the cautious side and say that if it's not obvious, then note it to someone else and let others do it, if 0RR applies to one of the editors involved.”

Given this extremely disruptive behavior, the length of time it has been going on, and the fact that similar behavior has been exhibited on other articles as well (see this, for example, where he has blocked an editor with whom he has an active content dispute) – I think that ChrisO got off extremely lightly (a 30 day ban from a single article), and that a more appropriate sanction would be a topic ban, from all I-P related articles, for a substantially longer time period.

Statement by Tarc

I find it rather hard to believe that, in the name of "mediation", one administrator can simply ignore policy and guidelines on NPOV and BLP and such. All edits and/or reverts are not created equal; if someone edits in violation of Wikipedia policy, to sanction someone else for addressing and removing such violations is a serious error in judgment. Mediating in this or any I-P related article is a thankless task that few if any have the time, patience, or willingness to undertake, and Elonka should be commended for taking a stab at a difficult task. But a bit more flexibility is called for here, and a hard "no reverts ever" is simply bad practice and completely unworkable.

Statement by JGGardiner

Like everyone else, I have to say that Elonka has done a wonderful job on the talk page. This was definitely a mop and bucket job. I can see how the editing conditions may seem a little draconian but the alternatives are worse.

When I first read Chris' statement I thought it did raise an interesting policy question: can editing restrictions override our policy restrictions. But, having looked everything over once again, I'm not sure that there is an actual policy difference here. Elonka's conditions seem to have exclusions that go far beyond just BLP: "If something is added that is unsourced, that is obviously troublesome (such as very biased or potentially untrue), it can be deleted on the spot." Chris’ initial arguments seem to be that his edit was within the limits of Elonka’s restrictions. I think this is just a simple disagreement over the nature of Chris' particular edit.

Chris does acknowledge that he did not adequately construct his summary. If he did alter content beyond what was necessary to satisfy BLP concerns, it is easy to see why Elonka would have felt this was a reversion in violation of the editing conditions.

I am sympathetic to Chris’ feelings. I think that his general concern was having the article within policy. But I think that an admin in Elonka’s position would have had to have given Chris the benefit of the doubt to think that his edit was not a reversion. And at that point nobody on the talk page deserved such a benefit. --JGGardiner (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kelly

I fully endorse Elonka's actions - as someone who tried to make a foray into this article as an uninvolved party, I can testify that a firm hand is needed in handling this article. ChrisO's behavior has been problematic at times, as Elonka states (particularly his continual use of derogatory terms like "conspiracy theories" to describe other viewpoints; I believe this provokes other editors into inappropriate actions). This is not to say that the editing of his "opponents" has not also been problematic. But, as an experienced user, ChrisO should know better. Frankly, I'm impressed with how Elonka has handled the situation, and feel this approach should be used with other contentious articles. No ArbCom action needed here. Kelly hi! 14:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WJBscribe

This seems to be about the imposition of a fairly routine discretionary sanction as provided for by the remedies in the case in question. If someone thinks an administrator erred in imposing such a sanction, their first avenue of redress is surely to seek input from other administrators, say by raising the matter at WP:AN/I and establishing a consensus that the application of the sanction should be reversed. I don't think the Arbitration Committee's input is needed unless the community is unable to resolve the matter, or clarification of the remedy is needed. Neither appears to be the case here. The Committee will waste a lot of time if they're to agree to provide "first instance" review of every discretionary sanction imposed by an administrator. I think other avenues of redress should be explored first. WjBscribe 15:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Penwhale

I think the problematic part is the fact that some people would read the original wording as only sanctioning AFTER warning, and not to start with blanket 0RR. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 16:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request for clarification: Scope of the Arbitration Committee to create new policy and process. [45] [46]

Statement by Barberio

Recently, two 'remedies' have been passed by the Arbitration committee that seek to establish new policy and processes affecting en.wikipedia content. This is a both a step beyond their usual remit of only responding to user behaviour issues not content issues, and only recommending that the community develop new policy to address issues.

I can find no part of Wikipedia:Arbitration policy that enables the Arbitration committee to do so, and I suggest it goes against the spirit of wiki policy. The exact wording in the Arbitration Policy states that all remedies MUST be in the form of "User X is...". In essence, remedies were intended under the policy to apply to individuals. It has been stretched over time to cover groups, but now it has been stretched far beyond it's original intent.

Again, I must make this clear, Wikipedia:Arbitration policy as currently written bars the Arbitration Committee from making remedies that cover more than a single person. I also suggest that those who voted for the Arbitration committee's current make up were not informed, and may not approve, of this extension of the powers of the committee's members.

Can the arbitration committee members please explain to the community 

 * Where the power to mandate these new policies and processes comes from;
 * Why they did not feel the need to consult with the community, or allow for community discussion;
 * How they would react if the community rejects these new processes;
 * and any sanctions on editors they may enforce for failing to accept these new processes.

I would prefer individual, and full explanation of their decisions from each arbitrator. I think it would also be fair to ask the dissenting arbitrators to explain their positions too. I do think this issue is important enough to the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, that all arbitrators must explain their actions to the community, beyond a simple 'aye or nay' vote. --Barberio (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MBisanz

I take this opportunity to point to m:Foundation issues which is a list of issues made by the Wikimedia Foundation that are beyond the debate and alteration of the local communities. Point five reads in part: "The Arbitration Committees of those projects which have one can also make binding, final decisions such as banning an editor."

I therefore submit that if Arbcom is the final binding authority, it may make its decisions however it chooses and may make them as broad or as narrow, as novel or as regular, as it feels necessary. MBisanz talk 13:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Barberio by InkSplotch

I think it's fairly straightforward here...I've never seen anything to suggest the Arbitration policy is either prescriptive or proscriptive. It establishes the remit and scope of ArbCom, and if anything is truly binding the sections Scope and Rules are it. The rest seems fairly descriptive of the process, informing others what to expect. In this case, that particular remedy does follow the "similar to" format described, neither does it violate the scope or rules clauses of their remit. I think you've a bit of an uphill battle here, needing to establish fully that:

  • The aribitration policy is a binding, proscriptive document.
  • That these remedies violate the spirit of the policy.
  • That these remedies are, in fact, new policy themselves.

I've been following the discussions in several places, from the talk page of the Footnotes:Proposed Decision page over to the BLP pages. Personally, I don't like the remedy as written, and fear it's far too open to abuse. Procedurally, I think it belongs more under Principles than Remedies (something I decided on reviewing the BDJ case earlier today) and I wonder if it would have raised as much fuss there (I suspect so). The more I see from current and former arbs, the more I think I understand why they wrote these remedies, and I'm being swayed that they're not actually "new policy." I still think a good bit more effort needed to go into the writing of things to get this point across, and minimize attempts to wiki-lawyer things.

Barberio, I've seen you passionately argue on these topics before. I think you could have some constructive input over on the BLP talk pages. Trying to strike this down as procedural on this page, however, is just plain wiki-lawyering and it won't really fix anything. We might need more discussion before we all understand one another, but the issues here are real and they're not going away. --InkSplotch (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WAS 4.250

Arbcom rightly has binding authority over behavior disputes between editors that the normal resolution processes fail at solving. It is quite a stretch to say that the case that was brought represented a behavior dispute between editors that normal process failed at and that this ruling is a response to. It is an ill conceived, poorly written, unjustified, variously interpreted terrible ruling that will create and has created drama. In the future it is very likely to create NPOV violations that can not be fixed without even more drama. To embolden admins in this way either creates a honeypot to catch and desyop admins or it is a get out jail free card that will create even less incentive for acting responsibly. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ned Scott

Unfortunately I don't think much good will come from this request for clarification. We're asking arbcom itself if arbcom can do this or not.. This is a good example of why we need some form of checks and balances. However, I still encourage editors to leave comments here, as the discussion itself my pressure arbcom into re-thinking the issue (as it has in the past when the community got in an uproar over a past decision). -- Ned Scott 21:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carcharoth

Taking a different tack on this, the history of the Arbitration policy is quite interesting, especially how it was actually put together, and especially when you compare it to how things work now. The initial version of the policy was posted over four years ago on 1 February 2004. See here. I think the version that was voted on (see oppose votes 12 and 14 at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy ratification vote for early uses of "arbitrary"... <ahem>) is here. Anyway, aside from the history lesson, what I really wanted to try and point out, was whether the policy document has actually changed fit current practice (ie. is it descriptive rather than prescriptive?). Judging my the last year's woth of edits, tweaks are made on a fairly regular basis. Though I will note that this citation tag has remained in the policy since November 2007. There was also an edit war in September 2006 over whether the Arbitration Committee itself should be able to rewrite the policy, plus some other issues. See: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. Currently, the bit at the top says: "This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia. More so than other policies it should not be edited without considerable forethought and consensus among Committee members." That current version stems from this edit. Just some examples of how the policy has been tweaked over the years. Carcharoth (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

  • Sir Thomas: "Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?"
  • Roper: "Why, yes! I'd cut down every law in England to do that!"
  • Sir Thomas: "Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down--and you're just the man to do it, Roper!--do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"

A challenge to provisions made by the final dispute-resolution apparatus of this community should be treated with care. The arbitration committee is elected and it is in our interests, while telling it when we think it may have made a mistake, to ensure that we do not challenge its legitimacy. We don't want to have to face those winds. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And of course I forgot to say that we're scheduled to hold another arbitration committee election later this year. About half a dozen arbitrator seats will be up for election. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 03:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by brenneman

These questions need to be asked.

I too have spent some time recently reviewing the history and role of the Committee, and in particular its response to community input. While I do not believe that this is the appropriate venue, some general threads are already appearing in this very short discussion:

  • The tension between policy as "what we do" and "what is written." This is the premise of this entire request, no?
  • The tension between Wikipedia as a functional collaborative community and the foundation-level ability of ArbCom to rule by fiat.

The community (and the 'Pedia) have grown enormously. It's well and truly time to go back to first principles: Asking what is the function of the Committee, what problems are they intended to solve, and what the best way to move forward is. Arguments that suggest that we simply cannot disband the committee are well, simply avoiding the substance of this debate.

The most beneficial, the most "wiki" way forward is to have a wide-ranging discussion with the community. You know, the one that actually writes the encyclopaedia?

brenneman 02:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dragon695

Some arbiters are saying that this is similar to remedies imposed on a collection of articles that have been made for awhile now. I just have to disagree with them on this one. The number of BLPs alone is a magnitude of 100x what any of those previous collective remedies covered. To make matters worse, WP:BLP has become like a cancer, creeping into articles and subjects which have very little to do with BLP at all. However, because a living person is mentioned, the entire article is covered by BLP in the minds of some BLP extremists. So, with that factored in, this general remedy is in the order of 1000x what previous general remedies covered. I'm concerned that arbiters are not paying attention to how some very well protected administrators game the system using these policies and general remedies as outlined in C68-FM-SV evidence. Look at what happened to Cla68 when he tried to call out SlimVirgin on her wrong-doing, he was crucified. Did you know that SlimVirgin popped in over at the BLP Special Enforcement talk page to let us know that she would not be abiding by the statement of ArbCom that only uninvolved administrators should apply this remedy, since the word univolved contradicted language in WP:BLP? This is exactly the kind of thing that I and many others feared. If you refuse to revisit this decision, will you please, please, please make it clear that only uninvolved administrators are entitled to invoke this remedy. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kendrick7talk

I second what Dragon695 says. While anyone can remove problematic information per WP:BLP, involved admins should not be handing out long term blocks, especially where it's easy and commonplace to dress up content disputes as BLP issues. I don't understand why ArbCom can't understand the problem with turning our encyclopedia into a bunch of little fiefdoms. You'll drive off productive editors when they realize they are essentially serfs. If the Middle Ages taught use one thing, it's that feudalism is a crappy way to run things. -- Kendrick7talk 18:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

I suggest that you re-read the policy and also review our previous rulings for examples of remedies. Your statement does not reflect the actual wording or the spirit of the ArbCom's policy. In past ruling we have made Findings and Remedies about Wikiprojects and the Community. And our policies, like most Wikipedia policy, are descriptive not prescriptive. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In responce, a direct quote of the portion of the policy,

Remedies will be of a form similar to:

  • "User X is cautioned against making personal attacks even under severe provocation."
  • "User X is limited to one revert per twenty four hour period on article A."
  • "User X is placed on personal attack parole for a period of Y; if User X engages in edits which an administrator believes to be personal attacks, they may be banned for a short period of time of up to Z."
  • "User X is prohibited from editing group Y of articles for a period of Z."
  • "User X is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of Y."
Can you please highlight which part of this allows for remedies that create new policy applicable to the entire wiki? I also directly dispute your statement, the arbitration policy by it's very nature is one of the few proscriptive policies. --Barberio (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your interest in discussing a concern, but you are mistaken in your interpretation of that section. That section of the policy describes the format of the written ruling and not the content of the ruling.

And by custom and practice, ArbCom writes the description of our policy. As always, I'm interested in listening to the opinions of users and will make my decisions after careful reflection on what is best for the Community per my understanding of community norms and policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for being forceful... But you are merely saying I am mistaken, but not saying why I am mistaken. You are making an empty argument, and an appeal to authority.
Again, I ask the simple question to which you now appear to refuse to answer.
Where in the current WP:Arbitration policy are you empowered to create new policy and processes in a remedy? --Barberio (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fairly unproductive line of reasoning, at best. If you prefer, you may interpret every "general" remedy that we have passed as a statement of intent that we (a) shall desysop and/or ban editors that do not comply with it and (b) shall not to desysop and/or ban editors that do comply, both of which we are perfectly empowered to do by your interpretation of the policy. Kirill (prof) 03:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overlooking, for the moment, the purely semantic matter of how general sanctions may be written in a way that complies with a one-editor-per-sanction model—as I've mentioned above, this is perfectly doable (albeit with more paperwork for us), but I don't think people are that interested in an extended discussion of ruleslawyering—I'd like to comment on the more substantive points raised here.

The current trend of "general" remedies—which is to say, remedies which do not explicitly specify the editor(s) to whom they apply, but are instead left open such that other parties (typically administrators) may apply them without consultation with the Committee—is something that emerged from the large number of cases involving ethnic, national, and political conflicts that were heard throughout 2007 and into early 2008. The fundamental problem encountered there was that problems with editor conduct were not primarily an artifact of the individual, but rather of the group to which he belonged; in other words, the issue was not with the quirks of a specific editor, but with a statistically substantial portion of all editors who were members of some external national, ethnic, political, or other group.

Attempts to deal with such cases by sanctioning each involved editor individually (as was done in, say, Armenia-Azerbaijan) were largely ineffective, both because new editors would continuosly arrive and engage in the same problem behavior, and because the ease of creating new accounts meant that editors who were the subject of sanctions could evade them with minimal effort. Short of instituting drum-head trials and increasing the current caseload by an order of magnitude or more, the arbitration model simply cannot scale to deal with such scenarios adequately; and so we decided to delegate a portion of our authority to the administrator corps in general, allowing them to essentially issue remedies in our name.

It's worth pointing out, then, that this method has been common practice since at least the middle of 2007 (and far longer, if we include the old "article probation" as a general remedy), with no general sentiment that it was incompatible with the stated purpose and structure of the Committee. The current situation is essentially an application of it to a type-of-article scope (i.e. BLPs) rather than to a subject-of-article one (i.e. articles dealing with Armenia-Azerbaijan); it is fundamentally following the same well-established model of delegating our authority in order to be able to handle the disputes in the area with some reasonable expediency. It is not "making policy" any more so than the other remedies of this form were; rather, it's simply a (quite necessary) form of delegation. Kirill (prof) 06:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've explained how you got to this point... But this is not an argument in favour of letting the arbcom continue assuming powers by these extensions.
Let me illustrate... There's a path that goes up to a cliff edge, that we're walking up. It's a perfectly safe, level path, except it gets a bit lumpy and dangerous near to the cliff edge. Someone might walk along that path, each step automatic leading on from the one before.
But most people stop once they get to the edge of the cliff.
Perhaps I might suggest that the Arbitration Committee went just a bit too far in assuming powers to make subject-of-article remedies without first consulting with the community as to if they had those powers. I'm comfortably sure that the community would have granted those powers, but they would most probably limited them to areas of correcting editor conduct, not creating new policy and processes.
The major point I feel you're ignoring is that this fundamentally changes ArbComs role. From now on, if this stands, ArbCom will be rule makers, not rule enforcers. And not only that, but rule makers who don't have to listen to community consensus. And I don't think that was what you were elected to be. Arguing that it was a 'gradual assumption of new rolls based on previous actions', is not an actual argument in favour of assuming this new role.
Again, can you please give the community some valid reasoning as to why you should be able to create new policy and processes? Otherwise, I think the community might decide you are not?--Barberio (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, there's no new policy being created here; this is merely a delegation of our existing, traditional authority. Kirill (prof) 17:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:General sanctions

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

Questions by ChrisO

I'd like to clarify a couple of policy questions concerning the general implementation of discretionary sanctions:

1) Do restrictions imposed under discretionary sanctions supersede the requirements of standing policy such as NPOV, V, BLP etc?

2) WP:BLP requires editors to "remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" on living people and states that "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals". If a 0RR is in force, does the same consideration apply - i.e. does the removal of such material count as a revert?

Grateful for advice. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section is redundant now given my request further up this page. I'd be grateful if a clerk could archive it, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Penwhale

This is just my personal opinion, but...

1) Restrictions imposed under discretionary sanctions shouldn't trump NPOV, V, and BLP (although I'm having trouble picturing an issue where these would come into play at the same time). Can you provide examples?

2) Regarding the second part, I would tread on the cautious side and say that if it's not obvious, then note it to someone else and let others do it, if 0RR applies to one of the editors involved.

- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 07:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the example in question is here. Specific answers should probably go there, and general ones here. I note that in that example, Elonka refers to ChrisO's citing of BLP as "spin", so there seems to be disagreement there over how to apply BLP. Carcharoth (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kelly

Recommend merging this request with #Request for appeal: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, above. Kelly hi! 15:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

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 Privatemusings

The committee indicated previously that after a little while they might lift my indefinite restrictions in editing BLPs - is now a good time? I'd like to edit unencumbered.

Any help in properly formatting this request is appreciated, and I'm happy to answer any questions anyone might have! - In particular I should note that I have reverted some BLP vandalism whilst under this restriction (which you've discussed previously as being acceptable, I think) - and lately I've unintentionally and accidentally made a couple of very small edits to biographies (one of which inspired me to make this request - and see contrib.s for all the info...)

cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anonymous Dissident

This might be moot, but I would urge that ArbCom approach this case with due consideration and good thought. This is a complex and tricky case in which various factors need to be considered, and, as FT2 notes, BLP could one day be the bane of Wikimedia. I urge caution, but I also urge that we really look at Privatemusing's growth as an editor. I believe he has changed and flourished as an editor and Wikipedian since his vices were placed, and I would like to pledge my personal, humble support for him and the removing of his BLP-related chains. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel

Similarily to Anonymous Dissident above, I wish to note my full support for removing these restrictions. My interaction with Privatemusings on biographies of living persons issues in recent months have been extremely positive, and his attitude is (in my opinion) compatable with the current policy and the current environment. If you need to consider some form of monitoring or similar for a couple of months just to make sure there's been no reoccurance of any problems, I'd be happy to assist and I'm sure others would too. I believe the remedy is no longer needed and is detrimental to allow it to continue. Regards, Daniel (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Swatjester

I say go for it. Like Daniel above me, my interactions with PM have likewise been good, and he shows a desire to better Wikimedia. It's not like you can't reinstate the restrictions anyway, but especially given the recent special BLP decision, it seems like it takes much of the hardship away from removing these restrictions (as any uninvolved admin could reapply them). PM of course would have to keep that in mind, but personally it's something I'd like to see. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 16:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Avruch

Per my last request on this page for the same purpose, I still believe that the remedies on PM can be safely removed. Swatjester correctly points out that, following the close of the Footnotes case, any admin can reapply the same remedy at need. I think, however, that there is no higher risk with Privatemusings in this area than with any other editor. If the Committee doesn't believe that the restriction should be lifted now, even given the Footnotes case, perhaps you could consider putting a fixed time limit on this remedy as an alternative. AvruchT * ER 21:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Giggy

I say go for it. I'm sure PM will be watched, closely, regardless. giggy (:O) 10:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carcharoth

I would like to second the requests for the Committee to set an actual timescale. Open-ended sanctions help no-one, and "a little more time" is too vague to be helpful. PM said previously he had been told "after a little while". I fear that if the committee don't set a timescale, some people will start to say PM is returning to this issue too often, but to say that would be unfair if the committee had failed to set a timescale. I realise that setting a timescale can lead people to just keep quiet until the time period is up, but if that is the case then an undefined period can be used first (to see how things go initially), followed by a defined period (an indication that things are going in the right direction), followed by (if deemed appropriate) full lifting of the sanctions or restrictions. Carcharoth (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

So, given the votes below, should a timetable be set, or how should we as a community approach it? - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 07:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The underlying concerns over judgement and what might be generally called "clue" in contentious areas persist.
Privatemusings has made quite some improvement in this area, and all signs says he aims to do so more, but for me this is a blocker. BLP are our most sensitive articles. They above all should not be the experimental ground where PM explores whether he yet understands how to handle himself and his approaches/ideas. That mostly doesn't change, whether his stance may be more towards privacy, or more towards disclosure on BLPs, since done poorly, both can (and do) create a problem (or add fuel/oxygen to one) where none existed before. I'd as soon, for his own benefit, protection, and learning, as well as for the wiki, that Privatemusings stayed off BLPs a considerable while longer, until he shows consistently a little more of what might be termed gravitas or careful judgement beforehand (for lack of a better word), in his judgement when, whether, and in what style and manner of posting, to dive into contentious issues (which BLPs as a class can be).
The intention is good - but good intentions that lacked that judgement got him into problems last time. I've been in dialog with him enough to form a view and as he'd acknowledge, we have covered areas like this a few times, I'm fine helping him on the way. A considerable while longer, probably, and a fairly solid judgement track record when he joins any contentious topics - and said with the express aim of him being a better editor and avoiding a repeat while he's still very much figuring this aspect out, rather than any kind of punitive or disapproving sentiment. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per FT2, I am greatly encouraged by the changes in PM since the case, but think that a little more time would help. This is not meant in any way as a punitive measure. James F. (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the above but would add this. As the community is becoming aware, we have recently given administrators additional power and encouragement to act on problems in BLP articles. Should those prove to work, I would regard them as rendering a separate editor restriction on the same topic as unnecessary and otiose. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for injunction and restoration of deleted RFC: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Intelligent_design_editors

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


Statement by Odd nature

Based on evidence I uncovered of harassment by a organized group of editors of another group of editors yesterday I filed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sceptre, Sxeptomaniac, SirFozzie, B in an attempt to compell that group to disengage. Less than 24 hours after filing and less than four after being certified, Random832 nominated the RFC for deletion [55] and moreschi deleted it outside of process and without a clear consensus to delete.

I'd like the RFC reinstated to allow the community to show some consensus and Random832 and moreschi, or any other admin or editor related this group, enjoined from deleting or taking any other admin action related to this RFC.

Statement by Moreschi

Oh, for heaven's sake. A) ArbCom is not a court of law, B) this belongs at DRV, and C), please see my comment at ANI here. Improperly certified RFCs get deleted quick-smart and "consensus" is not required. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm "related to this group"? BULLSHIT. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jim62sch

Denmark.&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 20:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Lar -- Now, now, WP:NPA. Denmark is an obvious reference -- a literary one to boot (and since this is an encyclopedia, such references are a propos. As for Latin or any of the lingua I know, I'll peper and solt my responses (or edit summaries) with them as I plese. Remember, our task here is to bring knowledge to the world! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 21:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random832

I took no admin action. Am I being accused of having taken admin action? Have you provided evidence that Moreschi was involved? I was actually just coming back online to withdraw the MFD since on further reflection I'd decided it's worth keeping around as evidence of the way some people make accusations accompanied with links that don't support those accusations. --Random832 (contribs) 20:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Nature has a tendency to see conspiracies everywhere, to accuse everyone who individually does something he disagrees with of being "friends" with everyone else. Where have I crossed paths with any of the other "involved" editors outside of this, that you can claim that I'm their "friend"? --Random832 (contribs) 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm "related to this group"? BULLSHIT. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC) - You took action, therefore you're related. Maybe if they keep it up everyone can be related. This is a farce, seriously. --Random832 (contribs) 20:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be completely honest, I don't even particularly like Sceptre, and the others I don't really recall meeting at all. --Random832 (contribs) 20:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, an RfC against a group by another group is a bit unconventional, just as an RfAr against a group by another group is a bit unconventional. - Except, neither of those is a valid characterization of anything, considering that there is no identifiable "group" opposed to the set of editors that the original RFAR was filed against - there's just you claiming that everyone who dissents from you in any way is somehow a WR conspiracy, and any neutral user who steps in and fails to agree with you becomes incorporated into that supposed conspiracy. --Random832 (contribs) 23:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lar

Jim62sch: Please assume that not everyone is as clever as you are, or as you think you are (whichever applies), and try to make statements that those for whom English is not a first language can parse. I think maybe I know what you mean by "Denmark"... but then again, maybe I don't. Communication wasn't did. Ditto for your use of Latin elsewhere, it's not helpful. This is an English project, not a Latin one. As for the requested injunction itself, I see not much harm in restoring the RfC as it will make those who initiated it look even sillier than they already do. But not much benefit either, so whichever. ++Lar: t/c 20:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:B

The content relating to me in this RFC was retaliation/harassment for my presentation of evidence at C68-FM-SV. As such, to the extent that the arbitration committee wishes to take action relating to it, there is already a suitable forum available. --B (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Filll

My impression is that this issue was going to be sent to the community for input in one or more RfCs. Clearly, an RfC against a group by another group is a bit unconventional, just as an RfAr against a group by another group is a bit unconventional. I thought that the entire motivation for having one or more RfCs was to gather more concrete evidence of any purported ill behavior by any involved. I will draw your attention to the quote by User: Thatcher on May 30, 2008: "And remember that your conduct in bringing the case will be looked at just as closely as the conduct of those you name in the case, so using the RFC as an opportunity for flamewars and personal attacks is going to be self-defeating." This deleted RfC was just a vehicle for looking at all the participants from a different vantage point. Probably one needs more like 10 RfCs, not just 2, but certainly 2 is much better than 1.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum by User:Filll

I have noticed that User:LaraLove and User:Dtobias and User:Ncmvocalist and possibly a few others have protested their inclusion in this dispute and the associated administrative actions, including one or more of the associated, impending and threatened RfCs. These editors object on the grounds that they are not related to this dispute and want to opt-out of it.

However, I will respectfully point out that this is exactly the situation that the members of the ID Wikiproject, and even a group of editors that are not members of the ID Wikiproject, face in the ID RfAr filed by User:Sceptre, User:SirFozzie et al [56]. The same is true of the impending RfCs and potential Arbcomm actions. As User:Durova noted, this form of mass group administrative action where the group has poorly defined boundaries sets one or more precedents, and might not be the best conceived approach to settling any underlying dispute [57].

The ID RfAr broadly supposedly targets the ID Wikiproject, naming in particular User:Filll (who is no longer a member), User:Orangemarlin (who is no longer a member), User:Guettarda, User:KillerChihuahua, User:Jim62sch, and User:Ali'i even implies that User:JoshuaZ (never a member), User:Baegis, User:Odd nature, User:dave souza (never a member), User:Raymond Arritt (never a member and scrambled his password because of repeated intimidation, including the ID RfAr filing), User:Badger Drink (never a member), User:ScienceApologist (never a member), User:QuackGuru (never a member), and User:FeloniousMonk are also to be included in this broad attack. The RfAr makes allegations of evil collective behavior. There are all kinds of vague and unsubstantiated claims in the RfAr, even though at this writing it has been open for about 13 days, which should be more than enough time to produce at least some minimal evidence of substantial wrong-doing, which has not yet been forthcoming. All of these editors are treated as some sort of evil monolith, and all are blamed for a mistake made by any single editor, and any purportedly uncivil wording of any given editor is attributed to all the members of this ill-defined group.

As User:Thatcher stated on May 30, 2008: "And remember that your conduct in bringing the case will be looked at just as closely as the conduct of those you name in the case, so using the RFC as an opportunity for flamewars and personal attacks is going to be self-defeating." If we going to allow a precedent where 14 editors can be named as targets of a vague catch-all WP:COATRACK-y assault, then the side bringing these complaints will have to endure a similar treatment and scrutiny of their actions associated with this dispute or leading to this dispute, as Thatcher so fairly and presciently states. In fact, since I have been attacked mainly for doing nothing more than defending other members of this purported and mystical "cabal", then those same standards will have to be applied to all. So by that standard, clearly User:LaraLove and User:Dtobias are suitable targets for one or more administrative actions. In addition, User:LaraLove was deeply involved in provoking, enabling and defending some of the behaviors that are part and parcel of this dispute, so should be included on that basis as well. I do not know the particulars of Ncmvocalist and any potential others who might be more tenuously involved, but given that there are demands by SirFozzie and Sceptre et al that they be allowed to attack the widest possible group of editors, then it is only fair that the exact same standards be applied to both sides in this dispute.

I would repeat the previous appeal of User:FeloniousMonk for all involved to just disengage and walk away from this RfAr, the RfC drafts, and any further impending administrative actions, which he made in the deleted RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sceptre, Sxeptomaniac, SirFozzie, B. I forsee nothing but wasted time and irritation from this series of RfAr proceedings, RfCs and Arbcomm proceedings. As Thatcher stated, everyone's behavior is going to be under investigation and scrutiny if this goes ahead. No one should be allowed to "opt out", and probably no one will be allowed to "opt out". Any mistake or misunderstanding or ill-considered remark made on Wikipedia, or possibly on other sites such as Wikipedia Review, will be open to examination and second-guessing and potential misinterpretation. Highly improper and uncivil comments like Sceptre's gleeful edit summary that was used when he opened this RfAr are going to be criticized. I would ask everyone on all sides to please use some rationality here and please walk away from this potential huge time sink and impending disaster. All those attacking the ID Wikiproject should not feel so smug, since it is quite likely that a serious examination is going to turn up evidence of bad behavior on the anti-ID Wikiproject and pro-WR side that is not going to necessarily reflect them in the best possible light.


What can be done to resolve this

(1) Stop talking about the members of the ID Wikiproject off-wiki (2)Start assuming good faith of all ID Wikiproject members (3) Stop calling the ID Wikiproject a cabal (4) Stop undermining the credibilitiy and ability of ID Wikiproject members to function effectively.

I personally feel harassed and would like it to stop. I feel I am being driven off the project, since I am constantly being undermined through exaggerated accusations. I have withdrawn from RfAs and RfBs and other polls because of this harassment. I have withdrawn from editing all evolution, creationism and intelligent design articles and all other controversial articles because of this harassment. What more can I do but just leave the project?


So I ask all concerned: Please reconsider.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to LaraLove

I do not intend to misrepresent LaraLove's position. And as for evidence, I am hoping that we do not have to get to that stage of the RfC process where evidence is compiled to make assorted negative charges and assertions against LaraLove and others. As I have stated about 10 times now, I would like both sides to just walk away from this dispute. I firmly believe that if supporting evidence and full arguments are compiled against LaraLove and others, that very bad feelings will result. So I am pleading with everyone to just disengage and back off. Please drop this silly dispute, or I fear things will get far far worse.

I also will state here publicly that I did not see any request from LaraLove to remove the word "missy". If I had, I would have removed it immediately. I also did not see a clear statement from LaraLove that the term LaraHate or LH, which I was given to understand are her current or previous chosen names on Wikipedia Review, was grossly offensive to LaraLove. If I had, I would not have used it and I would have removed it from any post of mine. I think it is a little peculiar that LaraLove chose a term she regards as grossly offensive as her username, but whatever. That is her choice. And if that is her assertion, she free to make such a claim, no matter how it appears.

Also, if I have caused by my actions some dispute to be prolonged, I am not aware of it. If I have been, I apologize to all concerned, whatever it was. I will point out that I do reserve the right to mount a defense when attacked, or defend associates in situations where I think they are being unfairly vilified. I have noticed that several points in this dispute, others have implied that it is an offense to even defend oneself or to defend others, at least for those in the ID Wikiproject, or those that they have assigned to the ID Wikiproject even though they are not members. I really hope that this is not to become some sort of standard part of the Wikipedia culture, because frankly, it is very unfair and looks terrible.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Dtobias

That RFC was ridiculous for many reasons, one of which was its scattershot approach of making (but hardly proving) accusations against a whole slew of different editors, including some who weren't even parties to the RFC... myself included. Like Random832, I was accused of being a "friend" of Sceptre, when I don't even particularly get along with him, and I was lumped in with a whole fundamentalist conspiracy against science regarding the evolution-related articles, which is a laff riot given that (1) I'm not religious at all, (2) I support evolution, not Intelligent Design, and (3) I haven't even edited any of the articles in question as far as I can recall. Still, I don't mind at all if this RFC were to be undeleted; it's good comic relief, and might prove useful in the future as something to cite against the people who brought it in future actions. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Sceptre

Jeff Fahey is a very quoteable person. Sceptre (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie

Considering the fact that the RfC was leaning heavily against Filll/Jim/OrangeMarlin at the time of deletion, I wish that it was merged to the THIRD RfC opened on this (which seems to be another chance to try to smear everyone involved rather then a true RfC), rather then deleted but agree that Jim et all are doing it all wrong in demanding that it be restored here instead of via DRV, etcetera. SirFozzie (talk)

Statement by LaraLove

I was misrepresented in this RFC. My name was mentioned three times but there was not one diff of evidence. I'm not one to claim harassment or yell incivility or assuming bad faith, but the claims being made about me lately with no supporting evidence are getting out of control. Lara❤Love 03:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to statement by Filll

(Response to part of it, rather... I only read the first part then CTRL-F'd my name to read other relevant-to-me parts.) I am once again/as per usual being misrepresented by Filll. I have not, at any point that I can recall, said that I don't believe I should be involved in any of this. What I said was (wow, I've had to say that a lot lately) that there is no supporting evidence of the claims being made about me.

I've found that Filll has an extremely bad habit of twisting people's words around and coming to random conclusions that he then presents as fact. He is selective in his reading and, in my opinion, fails to properly process the thoughts others convey, which leads to him misrepresenting editors and events. He interjects himself into situations which results in escalation rather than anything remotely resembling mediation and, in at least one case he, along with another editor, he derailed attempts for a situation, which they were not involved in, to be resolved.

If I had been posting messages to Filll the way he posted messages to me today, I most certainly would have been accused of harassment. He boasts of this policy of his where he will strike any comment another finds offensive, even if he doesn't agree. That is not true. He referred to me as "Missy" and later made two statements that I requested he strike. Additionally, I stated that it offends me that he keeps referring to me as LH (a reference to my alternate nick on WR that was created after losing the password to my LaraLove account, which I've now restored and returned to). Rather than strike, he responded with a customary snippy reply wherein he referred to me, once again, as LH. LaraLove||Talk 04:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ncmvocalist who formally requested the deletion

This whole request is bogus and needs to be dismissed. There was no sign of attempting to resolve the dispute. As I stated at the [ANI], User:Odd nature labels me, Cla68, LaraLove (LaraHate at WikipediaReview), Giggy, Dtobias (Dan T), The undertow, ThuranX, and Gnixon as "supporters" of the subjects of the RFC and insists the entire group "steer clear of participating in discussions regarding members of the project occurring anywhere on Wikipedia".

I'm uninvolved and have participated as a third party in several disputes (whether it be here, or at WQA), and at ANI - his accusations, I suppose, stem from me daring to participate and state anything he disagrees with. His gaming of the system to make unsupported unwarranted accusations against third parties, under the guise of satisfying a request from the arbitrators is unacceptable, and constitutes harassment, particularly when they're repeated as a smear campaign. The unacceptable manner in which he tried to have it certified - as if it is one dispute, when in reality, all he's done is referred to several disputes with several different users was another problem.

I therefore made the request to remove the bogus RFC and thankfully, Moreschi took action (the right action).

User:Odd nature needs to be reprimanded. Not only is it an abuse of process (as RFCs are part of DR, and intended to help resolve disputes), but it's an attempt to force uninvolved editors from commenting, when he disagrees with those comments. This is purely unacceptable harassment on his part. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum by User:Ncmvocalist

When third party input is given, they do not become involved or even tenuously involved just for stating their view (which disagrees with that of a group of involved editors). For all related purposes, they are uninvolved. What is shown by Filll's addendum is he's endorsed an RFC without 'knowing the particulars'. The intent of the RFC was not to attempt to resolve a dispute, but to begin a new one against users who (potentially) dared to comment (at anytime) on the misconduct of those involved. Similar to what B has stated above, it is in retaliation for my proposals at the workshop of the more recent case C68-FM-SV.

The Committee needs to promptly reject this request in order for third party input to continue in dispute resolution - no uninvolved user will be willing to give their input if involved users are allowed to make baseless/meritless accusations, attacks and persistently harass them in this manner, among others. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by user:bwrs

I again suggest that all users involved in the content of intelligent design and the related BLPs go to mediation, which will focus the debate on content, and defuse the debate on conduct. [I think the article seems to lack fairness of tone; if all 3 of the editors with whom I disagree (none of whom are well-known parties to the conduct dispute) are willing to go to mediation, then I shall too.] Bwrs (talk) 02:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Orderinchaos

This request is a waste of everybody's time - a quick examination of the situation on the ground is that it's well and truly moved on and a new RfC which isn't simply an attack on a rather nebulous group of editors is now functioning. (It's disturbing that it's the third RfC on the same topic in a week, but that's neither here nor there.) I agree with Ncmvocalist that the behaviour, lack of assumption of good faith and increasingly weird conspiracy theories by one user in particular are becoming problematic and a hindrance to any resolution. Orderinchaos 15:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds

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

Statement by User:Kendrick7

I am fully in favor of giving the editor formerly known as User:SevenOfDiamonds amnesty. He has been a fine, if illegal, contributor under the guise of User:I Write Stuff for two and a half months, and was only caught out again because he was over zealously defending another user from rather tenuous charges of sockpuppetry very similar to the case under which he himself was banned, which seems a noble gesture if anything. Prior to this he used other accounts, which have also been blocked for no reason other than being the supposed sock of an indef blocked editor who once upon a time threatened the project with wanton disruption.

None of those accounts carried out the threats of the editor who ArbCom ruled he was a sock of:

All along this editor has contributed to the project constructively, with all of one 3RR block. Block logs:

And additionally has created 42 articles:

Revolutionary Committee of Puerto Rico, COCEI, Rodolfo Fierro, Narciso Bassols, Movimiento de Liberation National, Genaro Vázquez Rojas, Elvia Carrillo Puerto, Demetrio Vallejo, Arturo Lona Reyes, Adolfo Christlieb Ibarrola, Andrés Molina Enríquez, Miguel Caro-Quintero, Sonora Cartel, Los Negros, Edgar Valdez Villarreal, Sinaloa Cartel, Agustín Casasola, Heraclio Bernal, Luis Amezcua Contreras, Jesus Amezcua Contreras, Adán Amezcua Contreras, Colima Cartel, Juan José Esparragoza Moreno, Ernesto Fonseca Carrillo, Javier Barba-Hernandez, Héctor Luis Palma Salazar, Mariana Grajales Coello, Ponciano Arriaga, Don Pedro Jaramillo, Salvador Nava Martínez, Jose Antonio Llama, Mario Montoya Uribe, Zapata Swamp, Zapata Wren, BINCI, Harold Bedoya Pizarro, Colombian presidential election, 1998, Zapata Sparrow, Luis Hernando Gómez Bustamante, Polaris (poker bot), Juan Carlos Ramirez-Abadia, Carlos Alberto Rentería Mantilla.

Hopefully this shows that he is not the disruptive editor he was accused of being. He would like to return to writing articles without the stigma attached and the constant on the run article creation. It's completely unclear, beyond reasons of personal egos of certain involved administrators, why this block continues. -- Kendrick7talk 23:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to User:Merzbow, I'm uncertain whether sneaking back into the project and being a productive wikipedian is necessarily less respectful of the project than sitting on the sidelines moping for some indefinite period per WP:IAR. Having to constantly look over his shoulder for the INS for the past year seems punishment enough. Insisting he sit out now just seems WP:POINTy, and while he went a ways overboard with the G33 case, the history here makes it obvious why that case pushed his buttons. -- Kendrick7talk 20:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to User:Horologium, there's been scant evidence of actual disruption, certainly none which ever rose to the level of a blockable offense apparently. Even the original ArbCom ruling made no finding that SevenOfDiamonds had in fact been disruptive, despite the arguments and evidence given in the case by certain editors of opposite political views. -- Kendrick7talk 23:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to User:B, yes, an apology would be great, but it's uncertain what SevenOfDiamonds is supposed to apologize for, since he continues to maintain he's not NuclearUmpf; Mr. N.U. could be on a beach in Tahiti trolling 4chan on his laptop and not be about to apologize for anything. Insisting SoD confess that's he's this other guy and apologize for that guy's behavior seems a bit of a two + two = five situation. People with life sentences make the worst prisoners; therefore, if it's solely a matter of doubt at to whether or not we've managed to properly break his spirit, at the very least the block should be shortened to some value of time less than infinity, so he can comply with the ban with some reasonable expectation of eventual re-admittance (even with certain restrictions) to the community. I sincerely believe that's in the best interest of the project. -- Kendrick7talk there are four lights! 02:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to User:Rlevse, I wholeheartedly agree that the community should cease wasting time with this, and I suggest some sort of amendment to the case would quite exactly make that possible. What we need to ask ourselves is whether, as our critics claim, wikipedia is about power tripping and WP:DRAMA or whether, as I secretly hope, it is about writing an encyclopedia. Because, despite our best efforts, that's what SevenOfDiamonds keeps doing -- writing an encyclopedia. And we need to face the reality that it's unlikely we will be able to successfully stop this behavior; we're just not getting through to this guy that our critics are right. Please raise your hand if you want to be preventing him from doing this for the next forty or so years because I think that's the true waste of time. As the lyrics of the one hit song by The Refreshments, "Banditos" says:[60]

So give your ID card to the border guard
Your alias says you're Captain John Luc Picard
Of the United Federation of Planets
Cause they won't speak English any ways

He'll make a few dozen articles, we'll figure him out again, and the process will repeat. -- Kendrick7talk you didn't think I'd get that third Picard reference in did ya? 03:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like Merzbow, I didn't pay attention to the case at the time, but I don't think any halfway decent computer scan would show a connection here, beyond both accounts being from metropolitan New York and being on a 9 to 5 schedule, which is pretty meh. Aside from the Allegations of U.S. State Terrorism article, NuclearUmpf/Zer0faults almost entirely edited in articles connected to 9/11, and occasionally regional graffiti artists and DJs, obscure Nato/Turkish/African military patrols, and the occasional Middle Easterner's bio (who probably have some 9/11 link). SevenOfDiamonds, et al., aside from the Allegations of U.S. State Terrorism article, most edited in articles related to Latin America militant groups, other Latin American topics, and (rarely) poker. The longer I look at it, the less it adds up. There are two outliers MONGO suggests. There's the band none of my friends under 25 would shut up about 2 years ago, the New York group Immortal Technique (made me listen to their song about 9/11 like 20 times), which Zero edited and SoD added to a template. And, Nuclear had a user subpage on Hugo Chavez, which hopefully you don't need to be an expert on Latin America to have heard of -- and who, as it says in his article, gives NYC tons of cheap heating oil, which makes him quite popular there (his article doesn't mention he does the same thing for Boston, and it sure makes him popular here). That hardly makes him the guy who's written dozens of articles on Cuba/Mexico etc. So these just don't convince me of a definitive link. Nor does the use of common messageboard speak (lol/rofl/+1). It's just "pop culture" type stuff for lack of a better term. -- Kendrick7talk 07:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, yeah, User:FayssalF, I know where you are coming from. I'm happy to advise SoD to go completely away for two or three months as a show of good faith in the community and it's policies, at which point I'd be happy to file an appeal on his behalf, if this is something the Arbs felt would properly reshuffle the deck, so he can then get a new deal. -- Kendrick7talk 08:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:confused: You know, if I was playing poker at a live casino, and there was a dispute over a misdeal or an angle shoot, and I called the floorperson over only to have him mutter something about butterflies and wander off, I think I'd go on tilt :-) I'm busy all weekend, but if it's process you want, and it's not simpler to amend the original case somehow, I can also just open a case up on Monday, and let the chips fall where they may. -- Kendrick7talk 20:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or to simply be more blunt, whatever wisdom you are trying to impart has sailed way over my head; any more straightforward guidance would be appreciated. -- Kendrick7talk 01:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten about this; I'm still crossing my t's and dotting my lower case j's here. Browsing the sock category, I found at least one example of a sock of Mr. N.U. (User:WheezyF, again, primarily editing NY DJs and rap artists before getting caught) claiming via another confirmed IP sock, User:TenOfSpades, to be SevenOfDiamonds, which, while unsurprising for an editor who has pledged continued disruption, complicates things. I want to confirm for myself that my contention is plausible before opening a case, but no smoking gun yet. I guess MONGO is right about that much -- N.U. indeed continues to pop in and cause problems. -- Kendrick7talk 01:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Merzbow, that's the diff I was referring to. See here[61] for where Thatcher confirms all three are the same, yet on a different ISP from User:N4GMiraflores who we know with certainty is SoD. Yeah, it would be nice to find an example of prior art where SoD lists all the articles he created. -- Kendrick7talk 02:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, aren't there are exactly two POVs on the U.S. state terrorism article -- people who want to expand it and people who want to delete it? Unless you are suggesting there is a subtler shade of POV I don't know about, that's not a cannon in itself. -- Kendrick7talk 02:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you changed your argument to expanded your argument to include the 9/11 conspiracy article. I don't see how those two diffs relate though. -- Kendrick7talk 03:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My head is spinning. It does seem N.U. also argued that he has created many articles as well in the past as can be seen on his own user page so I find the "smoking gun" diff odd but not inexplicable. As such, I will open a case soon, but I think one of SoD's account would need to be unblocked to act in his own defense if a case is opened, as I can't follow all the levels of intrigue going on here; especially when you start throwing Stone put to sky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s socks in the mix. My hamper contains less socks than the U.S. state terrorism article and I haven't done laundry in three weeks. In the meantime, I strongly recommend SoD leave his comments on his own talk page, where they are permitted, and I will attempt to review them, rather than continuing to violate his ban. You are in a hole -- stop digging amigo!! -- Kendrick7talk 22:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Merzbow, I noticed that right away and assumed you had as well; that's why I called it a "confession." Look at IWS's (illegally posted) argument below. If N.U. was in fact following/disrupting the original case as SoD/IWS claims, it's not unreasonable that he'd lay low and wait until it was finished to resume editing from a new account believing the coast was now clear. SoD came back during the same timeframe as User:N4GMiraflores who was even part of the same checkuser. If SoD and N.U. are the same person, why would he create two accounts using two ISPs to edit two different topic areas (Latin Americans vs. NY musicians), only to "confess" that they are the same person in the course of harassing SPTS, who was actually an ally of SoD? It doesn't add up; especially if what IWS says below is true: that they in fact edited from opposite POVs on the U.S. state terrorism article, which is something I was previously unaware of. -- Kendrick7talk 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't think a ten day overlay is anything close to a precise fit; I mean, you'd have to assume SoD got a secondary IP and created the N4GMiraflores with the malice of forethought to throw away the Wheezy account by harassing User:Stone put to sky about sockpuppetry SPTS hadn't even committed yet, which is about equally "grassy knoll." And the big gap in your reasoning is that N.U. is SoD even though they disagreed about the U.S. state terrorism article, while Wheezy and SoD are the same precisely because they did agree. Either N.U. had a complete change of heart and became SoD, in which, yes, case he could be Wheezy, or he didn't in which case, no, he couldn't be SoD. And yet Wheezy claimed to be both. So I don't see how things add up at all here. -- Kendrick7talk 03:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've tried to remind people are that page and it's subpages over the last few weeks, WP:PRESERVE is a policy, not a POV, so say of me what you will. But ultimately, I think the best thing to do is to submit a case; perhaps this aberration can be sorted out. -- Kendrick7talk 18:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bigtimepeace

I was contacted by SevenofDiamonds about this on my talk page and will comment here. SoD contests the findings at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds that they were a sock of ZeroFaults/NuclearUmpf. That's fine, but that was the ArbCom's decision, and quite frankly I don't think we should rehash it here. Rather than focus on whether or not SoD is ZF/NU, we should focus on the behavior of the user SevenofDiamonds and consider their request for an unblock.

I would support that request with some conditions. There is no doubt that SoD has written dozens of articles and thus contributed constructively to the encyclopedia. However they have also been mixed up in a number of rather contentious disputes centered around Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. Indeed this article (and perhaps some related ones) have been the source of all of SoD's troubles. That user has engaged in some uncivil behavior in the past (see here for example, and there might be some stuff under the account I Write Stuff, but nothing egregious unless I'm missing something). I would suggest that it would be reasonable for SevenofDiamonds to agree to the following as a condition of an unblock:

  1. Indefinite topic ban on Allegations of state terrorism by the United States and related articles (defined as articles to which the dispute from the main article has carried over, such as Guatemalan Civil War. SoD may feel their behavior was not disruptive enough to warrant a topic ban, but given that this is an unblock request and that this article has been the source of trouble this seems reasonable.
  2. No interaction with User:MONGO, who presented the evidence at the original arbitration case. It's possible that this should be extended to other users as well (perhaps User:DHeyward), but at the least SoD should stay away from MONGO and articles he edits.
  3. SoD picks one account, informs ArbCom of it, and agrees to edit only with that account. Other accounts would remain blocked.
  4. I assume all of this would be logged at the original arbitration page, and perhaps a link to that would be necessary at SoD's user page so that editors and admins know the situation should future problems come up.

There might be other necessary conditions but this seems like a reasonable start. Violation of any of the terms would lead to another indef block. It seems obvious that SoD will continue to maintain that they are not ZF/NU, so asking them to admit to that will be a non-starter. Maybe they really are, or maybe ArbCom got it wrong. Like I said it perhaps does not actually make much difference either way. SoD likes to write articles and I'm fine with unblocking to let them do that, so long as they completely avoid the areas which have got them into trouble in the past (if the user is going to keep writing articles no matter what, it seems silly to make them post the articles on my talk page). The committee could even say they still stand by the decision in the SevenOfDiamonds case that the user is NuclearUmpf, but so long as the user agrees to stick to one account, avoid problem areas, and not cause disruption they can be unblocked and allowed to contribute. These are just initial ideas and there might well be other issues to consider. I have no idea if SevenofDiamonds is agreeable to these terms or not because we have not discussed this issue, the user just informed me of this request via a talk page message and I am apparently here as a "friendly" party.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Merzbow, I would not really have a problem with a waiting period but don't know what we gain by holding off for 6 months. If anything it makes more sense to have SoD agree to the above terms (and perhaps others) now rather than just letting them create more new accounts which could be disruptive. We should think in terms of what's actually workable. If we can find an agreement that lets SoD contribute but keeps them out of troubled areas then why not do it now? And we should definitely add William M. Connolley, yourself, and anyone else who wants to the list of people SoD should keep away from (within reason of course, we can't have a list of 20 people and I think it would only be a handful anyway - I think basically just a few people from the US State Terrorism article). Also if SoD was causing disruption in 9/11 articles a topic ban there would be justified as well. In general I'm quite open to broadening the restrictions I mention above.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that, while I don't know if it was intentional or not, I find it amusing that SoD has created 42 articles. Given the popularity of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy here at Wikipedia that should surely count for something.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Given the strong objections below (and particularly given DHeyward's comment - I had no idea that NU had engaged in real-world harassment published private information about a Wikipedia editor [amended per DHeyward comment below]) I now think it makes sense to, at the least, hold off on this. I would suggest that SevenofDiamonds go about 6 months without creating new accounts and without violating the ban with IP edits. I would note though, and perhaps the committee can provide some guidance on this, that SoD (using another account) posted on my user talk page informing me they intended to submit articles to my talk page in the hopes that I would post them. That would put me in a rather odd position. I would certainly never proxy edit for a banned user, but on the other hand if they are decent articles (which seems generally to have been the case with SoD in the past) it would seem somewhat absurd to not put them in article space. Even if ArbCom rejects SoD's request as I assume they will I'd appreciate some guidance on that issue.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Merzbow

I urge ArbCom to reject this motion for now. It is true that IWS/Seven can contribute good content, but he also cannot stop the disrupting and harassing activity that got him banned in the first place: see this ANI thread for an overview of examples of both during the Giovanni33 ArbCom case; he also has a vendetta against WMC, starting an RFC here, then following WMC to an article IWS has never edited to revert-war against him ([62], [63]), then warning WMC here; etc. His unwillingness to respect a legally imposed ArbCom remedy and instead sockpuppet prolifically also does not bode well for his ability to work within the community. My advice to him is to stay away for six months to a year to show his respect for this community, then appeal for a second chance, which must come in conjunction with a topic ban for the areas that he only disrupts and never contributes to (i.e. articles on U.S. foreign policy and 9/11), plus a ban on interaction with those he's harassed (i.e. Mongo, me, to start). Yes, basically BTP's remedies, but not now, because that would be a reward for his deception, disruption and socking. He needs to take a long time-out first.

To BTP: 9/11 was in reference to actions under the NuclearUmpf account, which was infamous for pushing conspiracy theories in that area; some SoD's early edits did the same. Anyways, we don't give into blackmail here. A threat to continue to create new accounts "unless" should not be met by capitulation, because then every other banned user is going to feel it's OK. The bottom line is that via his actions, he has already shown he does not feel the rules of the community apply to him, so why should we give him a second chance until he can demonstrate otherwise by, you know, not sockpuppeting for a while? - Merzbow (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For those who believe the NuclearUmpf/SevenOfDiamonds connection was weak: I was not involved with that case, but looked at recently, and they are the same person. If we have to go through it again, we will, and with evidence five times as detailed as that presented in the original case, if necessary. I implore ArbCom not to put the community through this exercise again unless they have new and extremely convincing evidence. For just an example of what we would see, I noticed that as part of the Mantanmoreland ArbCom evidence, somebody ran an exhaustive computer analysis of time-day-edits between thousands of accounts, and their conclusion (with graphs) was "User:SevenOfDiamonds and User:NuclearUmpf had remarkably similar editing patterns, with 0.7758 correlation coefficient, which is a bit better than the 99th percentile." (link here). (I would also note that Mantanmoreland was indef'd today after further evidence came to light of socking.) - Merzbow (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick: I didn't know that WheezyF (talk · contribs), who it seems nobody disputes is a N.U. sock, was CU confirmed to be the same as TenOfSpades (talk · contribs) (and ElevenOfHearts (talk · contribs)), a painfully obvious SoD sock (see this post, which appears to be the first occurrence of SoD's now patented list of created articles + whine). This appears to be the smoking gun, no? - Merzbow (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK folks, we have WheezyF start editing for the first time on 2007-10-19, a day after SoD's last edit ever on 2007-10-18. WheezyF's interest in rap provides a key linkback to N.U. not present in SoD's contributions, while WheezyF's PoV on "Allegations..." is identical to SoD's (and an evolution from N.U.'s). The smoking gun has just turned into a smoking cannon. (Also, I've found it instructive that one of N.U.'s last edits was a pro-conspiracy edit to 9/11 conspiracy theories ([64]), while one of SoD's first was to the same article with the same POV ([65])). - Merzbow (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kendrick: I didn't change diffs, I just added an additional point (9/11) to the original point (interest in rap - half of WheezyF's history, lots of N.U.'s). Both diffs are from the pro-9/11 conspiracy POV; the latter obviously so, the former removed an unfavorable comparison of 9/11 conspiracy belief to a belief in aliens. (N.U. was a 9/11 conspiracy pusher on many articles, SoD also has other edits to this effect). My overall thrust is that the (ahem) "Nuclear option" - an entirely new case whose purpose is to overturn the first case - should be looking far less attractive now. What should be done is for somebody - preferably an Arb - to propose and get voted on, in this case motion, a path back to legal editing for SoD, based on some of the restrictions already suggested. - Merzbow (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kendrick, the gun is even more smoking than I thought. Look closely at the list of articles created claimed by TenOfDiamonds/WheezyF: [66] - I just noticed that it includes articles created both by N.U. and SoD (e.g., Kimberly Osorio is N.U., and Juan Carlos Ramírez Abadía is SoD). The only way out here for SoD is to claim WheezyF was created by N.U. specifically to frame him - a quite improbable scenario, given the account was made a day after SoD was blocked and continued editing for months. Nobody is going to believe N.U. came back from the dead after eight months (on the day after SoD's block) specifically to conduct an elaborate frameup campaign against an editor who joined Wikipedia four months after he left. - Merzbow (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick, N4GMiraflores was a follow-on account to WheezyF, not "of the same timeframe" - WheezyF edited from 10-19-2007 to 2-14-2008 (with a single edit at 2-22-2008), while N4GMiraflores/IWS edited from 2-12-2008 onward on a new ISP. - In other words, WheezyF almost precisely fills the gap between SoD's last edit and N4GMiraflores/IWS's first edit. If WheezyF was N.U. trying to sneak back in after SoD's ban, why did he all of a sudden decide to throw it away by announcing he was SoD (via TenOfDiamonds, plus editing "Allegations" with an identical PoV)? The alternative - that WheezyF was envisioned from the beginning to be a disposable account meant to last months, with hundreds of good edits, and frame SoD - is grassy-knoll material. Nothing adds up except for the plainest reading of the evidence - SoD is WheezyF, and thus N.U. - Merzbow (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a ten-day overlap, it's a two-day overlap with a single stray edit on the 22nd. And yes, SoD's PoV moved toward the inclusionist side, but it was still noticeably less so than G33, SPTS's, or yours - so it's certainly not "opposite"; and note that SoD and NU again share a pro-9/11 conspiracy PoV, so that didn't evolve. More importantly, WheezyF makes this moot - you cannot claim NU did not evolve his PoV if you want to also claim NU is WheezyF (because WheezyF's dozens of "Allegations..." edits were pro-inclusionist, basically indistinguishable from SoD's). Your only other way out is to claim NU as WheezyF deliberately faked all of those "Allegations..." edits to frame SoD - a grassy knoll theory that makes about as much sense as the real grassy knoll theory (as I've explained above). The logic here is pretty airtight. Anyways, I think we've both written more than enough, and are in danger of being forcibly refactored by a clerk, so this is my final statement on the matter. Do what you will. - Merzbow (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I summarized the above evidence in a more organized form here, as a statement in the now-rejected SoD2 case. - Merzbow (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell

I've not seen positive contributions by this editor which would outweigh the immense amount of time wasted in dealing with his independently disruptive socks. I'm also not clear on why we should condone the admitted evasion of an ArbCom-imposed ban, particularly when the editor in question continues to rationalize his ban evasion and deny any fault whatsoever. So User:I Write Stuff managed to edit constructively for one whole month before lapsing into disruptiveness. Have we sunk to the point where that's exceptionally praiseworhty? Editors able to contribute useful content without repeatedly running afoul of basic policy are not so rare that we need to waste more time on this. But admittedly, I'm grouchy at the moment since the USA lost 2-nil to England, so take that with a grain of salt. MastCell Talk 22:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Horologium

I would strongly recommend that the arbitrators reject this appeal. The almost continuous disruption caused by this account (under many names, the two most recent being User:I Write Stuff and User:SevenOfDiamonds) far, far outweighs the positive contributions. Sockpuppetry (especially of a particularly disruptive nature, as is the case here) is not something that can be excused, and allowing this user another chance opens the door to appeals of a similar nature. Does anyone really want to have to deal with JB196, WordBomb, LBHS Cheerleader, Pwok, Grawp, or any of many abusive sockpuppeteers asking for another chance, citing this as precedent? Horologium (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Giovanni33

It is reasonable to unblock this user. He has proven himself a net positive to the project through content creation, and I've seen many positive contributions. See his cooperative statement and evidence of his valuable contributions:[67]At a minimum, 42 excellent articles created by this user refutes those who claim, "no positive contributions." These many contributions are not negated by the possibility that may have been NuclearUmf in the past, and made poor choices then that led to him being banned back then. In so far as this possibility is true, it's only relevant to the extent that he replicates the problematic behaviors. He has not. At the very least his current conduct under the new accounts should weigh a lot more than previous conduct, if the original problems are no longer evident; he may not be perfect but he is certainly a lot better than many other established editors who we are not sanctioning in any manner. Thus, it's also a matter of equal protection and fairness for me, as well as pragmatic reasons. Ironically the "disruption" stems from the fact of his 'illegal' status here: it's the de jure insistence that he remain blocked and what follows from that fact, against his de-facto unblocked status that is the source of disruption. It is therefore counter productive in light of his actual positive contributions, which he will continue to make, and wants to make, no matter what. Administrative decisions, if they are in the best interest of the project, must be flexible and look at the bottom line: what is best for the project? Even if we believe that he was the indef.banned user (Nuclear), the new accounts were only banned on the basis of asserting such a link.

Also, if he is telling the truth about his original blocking based on mistaken socket-puppet conclusions, then I certainly can relate to that, and give him credit for proving himself loyal to the project inspite and despite the rules. It's a classic and ultimate case of IAR being put into practice. That is an area that is problematic, but the best way to deal with it is to make an evaluation on pragmatic grounds (what IAR was meant for).

Lastly, I want to point out that SevenOfDiamonds was not indef.blocked/banned by his Arbcom case. In fact, arbcom, in their wisdom, did NOT proscribe any remedy. They simply concluded that given the standard of 'more likely than not," one account was the other. They did not feel a need to issue any restrictions, or take any punitive measures. It was up to any admin to either feel a block was then warranted, or for him to be left in peace to edit. At this state, I agree with BTP, that it doesn't matter if SOD was Nuclear or not, or how likely he was, etc. Conditions should be ratified so as to codify a situation with the aim of minimizing as much disruption as possible while maximizing the positive. To me this means an unblock, perhaps with conditions, and for his opponents to reciprocate in abstaining from any uncivil interaction against him moving forward. If he wants to write articles, then who are we to stop him? To do so is to elevate form above substance, to raise the letter of the law above its spirit. Given the possibility that he should never have been banned in the first place, to continue to want him blocked no matter what strikes me as an irrational fetish of the rules for the sake of the rules.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to User:B. It is true he was circumventing a ban but notice he was doing it to prove a positive point, not a negative one, i.e. not to defy or disrespect arbcom or their authority, but to prove he was not disruptive as claimed, but a valuable contributor so he could make an appeal to them afterwards. Note he explains his reasons here, that he intended to request for the appeal afterwards, and does so now:[68]. This is not an act of a vandal/defiant rogue element that needs to be stomped out at all costs. Quite the contrary. Each case must be looked at concretely on its own merits so that does not give a green light to just anyone doing this; it goes without saying its risky at best. But intentions seem clear here and I feel intentions do count, even if it was flawed tactically.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DHeyward's allegation about his real name does not appear to be truthful to me, so I want to respond. First of all, I don't know what his real name is, nor do I care to know. I would never tolerate any harassment of anyone, either. To insinuate that I've done something like that is quite wrong.
DHeyward, the only thing I do know is that you have two user names, an old one and the new one. I have provided both before simply so that people know who I'm talking about. The reason for this is because you are known by your old user name more so, such as on the Allegations article, where under your old user name you've blanked sections a lot, edit-warred. I also know you had a block log that is no longer shown with your new account. Your past behaviors there rather poor on that article under the old account; the new user name, though, is clean from those misbehaviors, and gives you a face-lift. I also note you're less aggressive. So that is why I link them, so people know who we are talking about. It has nothing to do with what your real name is.
Also, you have never send me a message informing me of the situation, if your old user name was to be mentioned. The only time, and the first time I realized you did not want this displayed is just recently when I provided both user names in my arbcom case. I also know that both user names are not a secret and you specifically requested a change of your user name, not because you were trying to hide your real name because people were harassing you, but because you wanted to have your new user name be your real name--the one that you use now. I refer to this statement of yours about it: [69]. So your claim now makes no sense. I had just assumed you wanted to use your real name, as you stated, or wanted to disassociate your past behaviors linked to your previous user name, or your posts on conservative forums, etc. If you are mischaracterizing what I've done, your allegations against SevenOfDiamonds in the same vein are called into question.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:B

I am completely uninvolved in this case and only tangentially followed it. I encourage arbcom to reject it because it would reward circumventing a ban. If a banned user abides by the ban, then apologizes for whatever issues led to their ban, and promises not to repeat their transgressions, then I'm all for second chances. But someone who does not abide by the terms of the ban and gets caught socking should not be permitted to return. --B (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Rlevse

Banned means he's not allowed to edit. This is a sock of a banned user. Period. And the ban was partly for socking. Rewarding that behavior is counterproductive. Too much time has been wasted on this user already. Let's not do it again. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply to the email situation--While I have no idea what is in the email that was sent to arbcom, the fact remains that SoD intentionally evaded their ban. That is not the sort of behavior we should be rewarding. SoD should have brought this up first, rather than circumventing things and then saying "see I'm not so bad afterall". — Rlevse • Talk • 20:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:DHeyward

User:NuclearUmpf published my real name, employer and other personal information. He did it both on and off wiki in a malicious manner. Other editors commenting here have continued to make sure that the stalking continues (notably Giovanni33 and Inclusionist). My employer was contacted because of that. I was cyber stalked because of that. It continues on sites such as WR today. He should not be allowed to return and contribute in any way either as sockpuppets or as himself. --DHeyward (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to BTP: I don't know that NU was the one who did the actual harassment. He is the one who published the material that the harassers used. The only reason to publish that information was to aid the harassment. --DHeyward (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
response to Giovanni33: Here's my block log. In total. Only Tyrenius's block wasn't considered a mistake (I said a 9/11 truther was lying on a user's talk page). None for the "allegations" article as you seem to not be in command of any factual evidence. And your claim of ignorance and innocence is not credible either.
  • 2:20, September 24, 2006 Tyrenius (Talk | contribs) blocked with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Defamatory comment after warning)
  • 13:16, April 22, 2006 Curps (Talk | contribs) unblocked ‎ (not)
  • 11:38, April 22, 2006 Curps (Talk | contribs) blocked with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (vandalism)
  • 18:40, March 27, 2006 Ruud Koot (Talk | contribs) unblocked (after reviewing it appears Tbeatty made only three reverts)
  • 17:01, March 27, 2006 Gamaliel (Talk | contribs) unblocked (appears to be an incorrect 3rr block)
  • 19:02, March 26, 2006 Ruud Koot (Talk | contribs) blocked with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (3rr vio at Union of Concerned Scientists)

--DHeyward (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:William M. Connolley

This is a repeated sock abuser. Reject as a waste of time, and to judge from the state of the G33 case, you're short of time William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Guettarda

While I am not familiar with the underlying case, I would challenge Kendrick's assertion that IWS is a "fine" contributor - his behaviour has been problematic for a while. Not ban-worthy in and of itself, but needlessly combative. The suggestion that he has reformed doesn't ring true. Guettarda (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Rocksanddirt

The original arb finding that Sevenofdiamonds was Nucularumpf (or whatever) was IMO very weak. The evidence was substantially weaker that the recent evidence regarding Mantanmoreland, which the committee felt was uncompelling. While the harrassment by numf is NOT OK, BY ANY STRETCH, I'm not sure that SoD is the same person. I would ask the committee to review the finding. If appropriate to unban, I think a topic ban on 9-11 and similar conspiracy articles would be appropriate as SoD seemed to struggle with appropriate behavior in that relm (not substantially worse than others, but still). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Pokipsy76

I find just incredible that this user was indefinitely banned because arbitrators thought "it is more likely than not" that he was a sockpuppet of another.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

I stated at the RFAr case that SevenOfDiamonds would return under a new name anyway since it was pretty obvious that he had already been banned or blocked as NuclearUmph/Zer0faults previously and he has created numerous other socks to evade, edit war and to avoid a 3RR violation.[70] His actions as SevenOfDiamonds in terms of civil discourse also left much to be desired. He has a history of wikistalking his adversaries[71], posting other's real life information and being a general pain in the arse, frankly. That said, I also stated I was a reluctant participant in the 7OD case orginally precisely since I knew it would be a waste of time overall...as is this nonsense...since he knows fully that he can return anytime he wants and has proven this time and again.--MONGO 04:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Orderinchaos

Two ideas here - blocking should be preventative, not punitive; and indefinite does not mean infinite. If this editor is capable of working within our norms and improving the encyclopaedia, after time served, I have no problem with his return, although given past activity it may be advisable for ArbCom to either require a notice to be placed on his talk page, or to impose some kind of parole on the offences which brought him to the attention of the community. As per my comments at Poetlister incident, there is no need to revisit the old facts - unblocking now does not say the old offences did not occur or that they weren't serious enough to demand blocking at that time, just as parole from prison on good behaviour does not mean the murder or burglary did not take place. (It may well not have but that's not a decision for us to make here.) Orderinchaos 05:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AuburnPilot

I'd just like to reiterate what I said in the SOD case, that I don't believe SevenOfDiamonds is/was a sock of NuclearUmpf. The evidence presented was cherry-picked, ignored the majority of SOD's contributions, and the case as a whole was an embarrassment (See my comment during the case for more). A productive editor was blocked, not because he was the reincarnation of a banned editor, but because one editor cherry-picked evidence that made it look like he might be. I believe the case should be revisited, and SOD should be allowed to return. Ban him from interacting with certain editors if it you must, but a total ban doesn't make sense. - auburnpilot talk 01:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel

Only to get this moving and get a definitive answer from ArbCom on this, I propose the following motion to be voted on:

--- START PROPOSED MOTION ---

SevenOfDiamonds (talk · contribs) is unblocked. He is restricted to one account, and can only change accounts with the explicit approval of the Arbitration Committee. This unblock does not affect the standing of findings of fact or blocks/bans on any other account related to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds.

--- END PROPOSED MOTION ---

See also the Poetlister approach. ArbCom should finalise this sooner rather than later, if only to quash the ambiguity in the comments below as to the next step forward. Daniel (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I am fully in accord with Rlevse on this issue. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the basis of a detailed email that came to the ArbCom, I feel we should look properly at this matter. Assuming a request is posted, I'd vote to accept a case. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The email from user:SevenOfDiamonds is promissing and sincere. Contributions look good. However, the editor should have first contacted the ArbCom for a ban appeal. I am concerned by the RfC started on user:William M. Connolley, the involvement in the user:Giovanni33 ArbCom case, fishing user:Merzbow with CU. I am more concerned by the creation of multiple accounts (are they needed?). I am concerned by all that. A lot of good process is missing in here. We can discuss conditions of return if a proper ban appeal is filed but I don't see the need for one at the moment. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 07:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To user:Kendrick7... The butterfly counts not months but moments, and has time enough. - Rabindranath Tagore -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 09:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kendrick, I am unconvinced myself that SoD and NuclearUmpf are the same. You can accept IWriteStuff and other accounts' contributions even though they were made under block evasion. However, the fact that SoD put themselves into regular disputes again while using IWriteStuff is unacceptable. I also don't understand the need for creating multiple accounts even tough it is technically legitimate in this case. Yes, it is certainly about time. I prefer SoD do as the butterfly and not count months or days. It'd be about the moment SoD decides to embrace a less combative behavior. I hope it is a fair deal. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would just as soon not reward banned editors for evading their bans. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am far from convinced that SevenOfDiamonds is the same person as NuclearUmpf (the ArbCom, by a vote of 4-1, only ruled that "it is more likely than not"). Moreover the ensuing contributions, though not problem free, have been substantial and constructive. I'm inclined to allow this editor to continue editing, perhaps with restrictions. Paul August ☎ 15:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

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

Statement by Moreschi

As I think WP:AE currently shows nicely, the Eastern Europe flamewars cannot be dealt with by the current provisions of the Digwuren case. At any rate, I cannot cope, and I don't think anyone else can either. Isolating civility in the way the case does has simply encouraged users to bait other users in an effort to get their opponents put on civility supervision and blocked. We need discretionary sanctions WP:ARBMAC style to counter this, though with a good definition of the area of conflict (I would suggest, at the least, that it covers Polish-German disputes, in addition to Polish-Russian and articles relating to the Baltic states and Ukraine). Best, Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User:Moreschi/The Plague/Useful links for a list of EE-related ArbCom cases. The problem goes back years, and is easily comparable to other problematic areas such as Arab-Israeli, Balkans, or India-Pakistan. At the moment a whole pile of revert-warriors need to be revert-paroled, some incorrigible trolls topic-banned, and some baiters blocked. The current Digwuren case does not allow for this to happen. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Matthead

I had opened at case at WP:AE, after which User:Molobo opened two against me 1st (closed) and 2nd, trying to take advantage that I had been added quickly to the Digwuren list shortly after it was opened, and got immediately blocked, while he and well known other editors have, well, since been overlooked somehow? I perceive the composition of the list as lopsided and doubt that Eastern Europe flamewars are conducted one way. Wikipedia has 5 pillars, of which "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" and "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view" are the first two, and arguably the most important ones, compared to "Wikipedia has a code of conduct" as fourth. Thus, as we try to write an encyclopedia, I think it is necessary that much more attention is given to the content that editors add or remove, rather than to civility or the lack thereof, or the skill with which some editors can provoke uncivil responses while getting judged civil themselves. For example, Molobo repeatedly denied that there was a by-election to the Polish parliament in 1920 [72] [73] [74] [75] with support by another well known user [76] [77], calling it a German hoax also on talk, and stubbornly refused to acknowledge that after the Versailles Treaty made Soldau/Dzialdowo Polish, a by-election was held, which apparently is also stated on pl-wiki (which he repeatedly rejects, eg. with no source in Polish wikipedia and I can just as well edit that article that Martians invaded Działdowo in 1920. They were no elections in 1920 in Poland to Sejm. Case closed.). If I had not fixed it, the misinformation "A German author claims that after the town was ceded to Poland a large part of German inhabitants left the area but the candidate of the German Party, Ernst Barczewski, was elected to the Sejm with 74,6 % of votes in 1920, although no Sejm elections took place at the time" would probably still remain. Also, on Talk:Karkonosze, he repeatedly made false claims, denying that both Encyclopedia Britannica and Opera Corcontica use Giant Mountains rather than Karkonosze. In both cases, he Refused to 'get the point' despite other editors providing evidence that the was wrong, very wrong. Is such behavior acceptable? Molobo almost got permabanned two years ago. He returned after his one year block, and seemingly was allowed to do as he pleases since. -- Matthead  Discuß   02:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Piotrus' statement: it was Piotrus who made the most effective use of the new Digwuren case as soon as October 2007. It was him who had produced (actively?) "a big list" of (not so clear) diffs collected until December to take advantage of the restrictions, and managed to have Dr. Dan listed as the very first extension to the list, with Dr. Dan inflaming Eastern European topics. Soon, he got me, too, with Another Eastern European spat (originally titled Another Eastern European flamer, against which Dr.Dan protested). On the other hand, it indeed "is very, very difficult to get a user on the Digwuren's warning list" when he defends him, like in Darwinek's case. And as Piotrus and others know very well, it is hardly a coincidence that edits "will be reverted by more numerous" users who are listening to Gadu Gadu instant messenger. One of the biggest weaknesses of Wikipedia policies is that they treat editors as isolated individuals, especially in 3RR cases, while highly questionable forms of cooperations are overlooked, ignored, or denied. -- Matthead  Discuß   09:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Relata refero

There is absolutely no doubt that this is required. My involvement in EE issues is limited to the Worst Article On Wikipedia and on responding to various RfCs and posts on noticeboards - perhaps half a dozen articles altogether. It would be more except for the (a) blatant wikilawyering and misrepresentation of sources that happens as a matter of course and (b) outright baiting and misapplication of civility. I'm not one of those who believes that civility is pointless when dealing with POV-pushers, but what we have in these articles is that any statement of fact - "that source is obviously irrelevant" - is met with head-shaking reminders to be civil in the hope that some form ArbCom-mandated sanction will be required.

As a general rule, any section of the 'pedia permanently plagued with clashing historical narratives requires our most stringent controls. These are more difficult to administer and keep clean, because of the free availability and difficulty in recognising dubious sourcing, than the pseudoscience/scientific consensus articles that people have wailing conniptions about all over the noticeboards. Not to mention there are fewer people able and willing to keep an eye on it, and its much tougher to recognise POV-pushing....

If ArbCom suggests that I present a few diffs of the sort of occasion where (a) civility restrictions have led to baiting and (b) discretionary sanctions would have been helpful - just from my own experience - I am willing to. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rlevse

I endorses this request. Many of the long-term problematic areas of wiki need strong and flexible remedies. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Biophys

"Blocks of up to one year" on discretion of a single uninvolved administrator... Such drastic measured could only be used for users with long blocking history (say 6+ blocks). Besides, the area of conflict should be clearly defined. I asked previously if any Russia-related subjects belong to Digwuren case, but there was no answer. I trust Moreschi judgement, but we need some safeguards if this is adopted as a general policy.Biophys (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that, I am strongly opposed to proposal by Daniel below. First, it does not clearly define the area of conflict. Second, it does not provide sufficient safeguards.Biophys (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Martintg

There is no justification to extend discretionary sanctions to other topic areas such as the Polish/Russian articles, Ukraine or particularly the Baltic states. An examination of WP:ANI and other boards will reveal that these areas are relatively harmonious, and the existing mechanisms such as 3RR are working well.

A similar motion to impose discretionary sanctions across all of Easter Europe, on the back of a single 3RR violation in that case, was attempted back in February, but was archived due to lack of interest and some important questions of scope remaining unanswered [78]

So what has happened since February? A scan through the WP:AE archives reveals only a small number of cases reported to the AE board have anything actually to do with Eastern Europe. Out of 126 cases since February, only 4 are EE related, particularly Poland, and of those 4, 3 are concerned with Matthead [79],[80],[81]

Looking at the Digwuren enforcement provision indicates no utilisation of that remedy since April, despite Matthead being put on notice in January and blocked and three recent reports to WP:AE have gone unactioned, indicated above.

Both Moreschi and Rlevse have failed to adequately use the current remedies available to them. What is the point of proposing additional discretionary sanctions (with arbitrary blocks of up to one year) across all of EE, if they are unwilling or too timid to use existing remedies and impose a simple 24 hour block against an individual, despite it being brought to WP:AE three times in the last month?

Experience has shown that in the case of EE, disruption is usually caused by one or two individuals, and if they are banned/blocked harmony quickly returns. This is clearly a case concerning the behaviour of an individual and has no relevance to any other topic areas like Ukraine, Poland/Russia or the Baltic States. Massive intervention that risks totally chilling a broad subject area is not required, particularly when precise targeted action is more than sufficient. Martintg (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Martintg on email to refactor his statement in which he seems to single out me as trouble maker, based on what is a false perception. It was me who filed this to bring attention to an edit war in which I was not involved (just witnessing). In that thread, user Molobo attacked me, then filed not one, but two requests against me, repeating the same statements. All that within less than 24 hours. And that is now held against me? -- Matthead  Discuß   16:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't intend to single anyone out, I was attempting to convey that the current remedies and mechanisms are sufficient for admins to do their job. Who attacked who first is not at issue here, but requesting the imposition of draconian sanctions across a vast heterogeneous area of Wikipedia on the back of a personality clash between yourself and Molobo is. Can't you two work out your differences over a beer or something? It certainly has nothing to do with the Baltic states, so I don't see why additional remedies would be required. Martintg (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You still single me out, and in your original statement, you even asked why admins are unwilling to impose a simple 24 hour block against me. If you are neutral, I urge you to remove my name, and the diffs involving me, from your statement above - if you do not, I have to conclude that you side with Molobo against me, endorsing and essentially repeating his attacks. -- Matthead  Discuß   08:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alex Bakharev contends the current sanction encourages editors to "bait" other parties into civility violations. If this is the case, then discretionary sanctions will be an even bigger encouragement to bait editors into violation, since it only requires the discretion of a single uninvolved admin and the heavy threat of desysoping other admins who may overturn a sanction. A very profitable outcome to any baiter compared with the current situation. Arguing for additional sanctions across all Eastern European articles because of a dispute about some German/Polish topic is akin to arguing for discretionary sanctions across all North American related articles because of disruption in some US related article like 9/11. I'm sure those editing Canadian or Mexican topics would not be happy about that prospect. Martintg (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at User:Moreschi/The Plague/Useful links for a list of EE-related ArbCom cases, we see that there were 6 cases in 2007 (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anonimu doesn't count, as discussed here), but zero in the first half of 2008. This is a testament to the improvement that has been made since 2007, and thus no comparison to other problematic areas such as Arab-Israeli, for example, which has had already 2 Arbcom cases in 2008 so far. If Moreschi believes there are a "whole pile of revert-warriors need to be revert-paroled, some incorrigible trolls topic-banned, and some baiters blocked", he should name them here, as I know of none in the Baltic states topic area that requires the imposition of addtitional discretionary sanctions. I'm not aware of issues in the areas either, e.g. like Ukraine, certainly nothing serious enough to warrant reporting to ANI or other boards. Martintg (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Piotrus

For the most part I agree with Marting. I don't think that CE/EE area is much more inflamed then many others; we just have a few persistent trolls and borderline disruptive users. We have weeks of quiet punctuated by an occasional week when one of them "wakes up" and disrupts an article or two, then goes away after he learns again that such disruption will be reverted by more numerous, neutral editors. That said, it is a fact that such storms are stressful and may result in a good editor taking a long wikibreak or even permanently leaving, fed up with flaming and harassment. It is very, very difficult to get a user on the Digwuren's warning list and later, blocked - even if one produces a big list of very clear diffs you get the usual "random admin decision", usually erring on the case of 'let's give him another chance' or 'he was warned few month ago and inactive recently, so let's just warn him again'. And certainly, other admins may be to timid or afraid to apply the remedy to experienced editors who have proven their skills with wikilawyering. Thus I do think that the Digwuren sanction ended up being relatively pointless. Just as before, what we need are a few blocks (or topical ban - see who creates little to no content but flames and revert wars) - and the problem would cease to exist. Perhaps some conclusions from this debate may prove useful in dealing with this problem once and for all.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alex Bakharev (talk)

I agree with Moreschi, the Digwuren sanction encourage editors to bite other parties into the civilty violations and does not help to solve the underlying problem that many editors consider Eastern European articles as battleground and soapbox instead and insert deliberately inflammatory edits to the articles instead of striving to present some balanced view points Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel

The Homeopathy discretionary sanctions have passed (by virtue of having six support and one abstention, which reduces the majority to six), and the case is moving towards being closed. Per Kirill below, who said that the Committee was waiting to see which version of discretionary sanctions was prefered, I think the Committee has decided to this effect (the other discretionary sanctions proposal in that case only recieved one support, so the disparity is evident).

Therefore I propose the following motion:

--- START PROPOSED MOTION ---

Remedy 11, "General restriction" is superceded by the following remedy:

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 Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) 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. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; 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.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. 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. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Uninvolved administrators

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.

Logging

All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans.

--- END PROPOSED MOTION ---

Regards, Daniel (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I have recused myself once and I believe that at least I can say that this area needs more strict measures. I also agree with user:Biophys though the safeguards come usually with the pack. What Moreschi is asking about is the green light from the ArbCom. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It must be reminded that this is not a place for discussions as it is mentioned on top of this page. It doesn't help a lot. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 09:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My response here is the same one that I made in regards to the identical request in the Martinphi-ScienceApologist case below: I'll be happy to move for discretionary sanctions here once the Homeopathy case closes and we know which version of the sanctions is preferred. Kirill (prof) 00:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Request to amend: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request: The list of users in affected areas is too large to collect, list and notify conveniently. I will place notices of this request, so the community as a whole is aware, on the village pump,[82] administrators' noticeboard,[83] and fringe theory noticeboard.[84] If another editor believes there is a specific user or another on-wiki forum that should receive notice, they should feel free to drop a link to them.

Statement by Vassyana

I would like to request that ArbCom explicitly permit discretionary sanctions on all pseudoscience and alternative science topics, broadly construed, similar to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions. See here, here, here, here, here, here and here. That is only the recent threads, only from the AE noticeboard, only involving a very limited number of users involved in the broader dispute. I believe ArbCom explicitly endorsing discretionary sanctions would empower and embolden sysops and the community to resolve these long-standing issues, once and for all. Vassyana (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply about potential admin abuse

Regarding the concerns about potential admin abuse, I would expect that if ArbCom accepted this request that they would be open to reviewing complaints about related admin abuse. I believe this would increase the oversight and reduce the potential abuse of sysop discretion. Sysops would have to be accoutable for their actions.

I believe relying on more than common sense for the definition of "uninvolved" will only lead to wikilawyering. All of the proposed definitions I've seen essentially leave massive loopholes that anyone looking to game the system or skirt the rules could use. If there is a disagreement about whether an administrator is involved or not, a brief community discussion or appeal to ArbCom should suffice. I simply fail to see the point of creating a limited definition prone to gaming, which would require other admins and the community to employ their natural power of reason regardless. Vassyana (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Neal's oppose, I simply cannot understand that point of view, though I have tried. We permit administrators to impose full site blocks without an expiration date at their discretion. I fail to see how giving administrators lessor options (such as a topic ban instead of a full block) in long-disputed areas with persistant conduct problems would increase abuse potential. I should additionally note that we're discussing long-term problems, involving users who either know better by know or almost assuredly are never going to get it, not newbies who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Vassyana (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may comment directly (if not you can move this to my section). I'm more concerned about abuse-through-misunderstanding rather than abuse-abuse. It's not always clear what's neutral, and the discretionary sanctions designed for Homeopathy and the Palestine-Israeli issue are designed for narrow subjects. A broader subject category, like all pseudoscience/alternative science, becomes muddled with lots of other issues (see my statement). The discretionary sanctions for the narrow topics say any percieved "[failure] to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia", by any admin who feels strongly about it. There's lots of admins who feel strongly about their interpretation of NPOV, whether they're involved or not, and especially if they're involved in the broader discussions though not technically involved in the given page at the given time. The discretionary sanctions don't discriminate between bad editor practices like incivility, edit warring, etc. and good faith content disputes. Good faith content disputes can easily be seen as a "conduct problem", as that happens all the time. Maybe I am making a mountain out of a molehill, but hopefully you can see where the concern comes from. On a side-note, if we already have tools available for getting problem editors off these articles, why aren't they already banned? --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply about community discussion

Requesting or advocating that such discretionary empowerment be limited to consensus discussions is essentially the same as opposing this request. The community already has the power to impose bans and other sanctions via community discussion. I tend to think that over time, using such a method will only open up another battleground. Enforcement threads have already become another place to argue for the disputants in heated areas. I shudder to think what kind of response would be received after the first couple of sanction discussions make it "real" to such parties. (For an example, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive409#User:Mccready_-_endless.2C_disruptive.2C_repetitive_edit_warring.)

Regarding the concern about appeals, they should generally be appealable like any other admin action enforcing ArbCom sanctions: 1) Post to AN to ask other admins to review it. 2) Appeal to ArbCom. Excessive, repeated or otherwise disruptive series of appeals are not appeals at all; they are stumping and should be treated by another uninvolved administrator as disruptive. Vassyana (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to concerns about scope

What if the scope were limited to areas and users that have severe long-running and/or perpetually recurring behavioral issues? I believe that would keep the scope from being too broad or limited. Vassyana (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rlevse

I heartily endorse this request for stronger measures re editors on both sides of this issue. More details to follow. I'll be on wiki break much of this weekend. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides throw reports at WP:AE, trying to see what will stick. Many admins are wary to block because of fears another admin that is sympathetic to the blockee will unblock. The remedies in place are not working and something has to be done about it. There are also significant agreements among admins about what constitutes civility. This leads to users who have mastered the art of being borderline incivil and getting away with it for years. A firm policy about this sort of incivility being blockable, long term if necessary, need to be put in place. Copied from my comment at WP:AE archive 20..."Closing comment...enough already. This has descended into a finger-pointing complaint session by both sides. Before writing anything about someone else, ask "Would I want to be called that?". If not, don't write it. If it's borderline don't write it-this would stop all the attempts here where users throw up a report just to see what sticks; only truly legit reports would get filed if this were to occur. For example, maybe you wouldn't mind being called "braindead", but it would offend a lot of people. Also, you (you as in everyone, both sides) may consider your efforts on wiki non-POV, but others may not. If everyone involved here would take a step back, take a deep breath, and admit that the world of wiki is plenty big for everyone, things would be a lot calmer. These types of disputes start and go on and on when no one allows room for the other side. I see this not only in the pseudoscience area, but Mid-East, East Europe, Sri Lanka, etc disputes. On top of all this, there's about disagreement about the civility here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)"...Something has to be done here, this long term situation is highly divisive to the encyclopedic and takes way too admin effort to keep it within harmonic editing boundaries. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nealparr

Sure, if by "uninvolved administrator" you mean administrators not involved in "pseudoscience and alternative science topics, broadly construed" as a whole, or regularly, rather than a given page at a given time. After years of this madness, Wikipedia has collected some ban-happy admins with grudges and axes to grind. I'm sure many of them would love to ban their opponents on content disputes for up to a year. What sort of assurances can one like myself who edits paranormal-related articles as a hobby, not advocacy, be given that the new powers won't be abused? I don't edit war, am civil, but I've irritated admins in the past simply by disagreeing with them in content disputes, particularly that Wikipedia can also cover folklore neutrally without having a solely science point-of-view. Some admins adamantly reject that eventhough most agree that such a prospect is entirely neutral. AGF went out the window about two years ago on these topics, so frankly I'm a little concerned.

Paranormal topics aren't just pseudoscience (though they are, in part, that). There's also a historical perspective (eg. Remote viewing was studied by the CIA, UFOs were studied by the Air Force, Parapsychology was once accepted by the elite in society like William James, etc.). Presenting that historical information is sometimes called POV pushing by admins. There's also the sociological perspective (eg. 73 percent of the general US population holds some sort of paranormal belief [85]). Presenting information regarding just the "beliefs" is sometimes called POV pushing by admins. There's also the cultural, folklore perspective (eg. Spooklights are common in Southern US folklore). Talking about the folklore on those articles is sometimes called POV pushing by admins who say that the article should predominantly be about methane gases, etc. So, yes, there is a potential for abuse based solely on ideologies and old grudges. If the goal is to just to refresh the editor pool on these topics regardless of whether they're productive Wikipedians, that's fine, that goal will be served if no oversight is in place. But if the goal is to only target disruptive editors, there will need to be some sort of oversight.

I'd like to see what DGG mentioned below, a Topic Ban Noticeboard and some degree of practical consensus to prevent a single editor/admin, or ideological group of editors/admins, from going ban-happy. --Nealparr (talk to me) 13:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

per Vassyana's replies on it's intended use. It seems fundamentally wrong that blocking or banning a user, a person, would have less outside discussion than what it takes to delete an article. This is essentially a "speedy delete" applied to a user, in spirit. It's always harder to correct a mistake than it is to prevent a mistake. Community discussion is essential when dealing with users who may not be aware that what they are doing is wrong, and determining what actually is wrong to begin with. That's what RfCs are all about. If the goal is to relieve the burden on the ArbCom, that can be done without dropping the discussions altogether. A very simple way to do that is to say "If after a RfC about applying sanctions on the user, allowing for community input and consensus-building, an uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict." Anything less is setting the bar for deleting a user from a topic lower than deleting a topic itself. The RfC also has the benefit of providing the banning/blocking admin with a summary of the issues surrounding the user so they could make an informed decision. The admin could, of course, in their discretion, interpret the RfC anyway they wish and impose their discretionary sanctions, but at least there'd be a discussion on the matter. --Nealparr (talk to me) 18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRBerry

Concur that this is a good idea, as an admin who is a regular at WP:AE. Editors active in this area should write their comments assuming that their own actions, and those of whom they agree with on content, will be reviewed and possibly sanctioned. I know of multiple editors in each faction who have effectively developed enemy lists of other editors they want banned, which is a bad sign for the ability of the editors in these areas to work together. We need to clear out those who can't or won't work with those who disagree with them so that a reasonable communal editing environment exists for current and future editors. GRBerry 15:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a strong definition of uninvolved/neutral is needed here. I commend the WP:ARBPIA model - has never been involved in a content dispute on any article in the pseudoscience/paranormal topic area with that topic area broadly construed. GRBerry 17:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need more than that. We need a statement of neutrality toward the subjects themselves. I've seen mediators come in and say essentially "Well it's bunk so..." ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Martinphi

Endorse per everything Nealparr said. I have very little confidence in the ability of admins 1) to be neutral if they are involved and 2) to get it if they are not. Indeed, I have seen editors like Zvika who did my interview struggle with the issues in these cases, and find it nearly impossible (many many hours of work to get up to date). I have seen obviously biased admins who are supposedly "outside" the debates come in and give sanctions. For example, some of those banning people relative to the 9/11 or Homeopathy issues. In other words, I have no fear of neutrality, but I have fear of hidden bias. If even Nealparr is scared, I certainly am, because I've been deionized all over the place irrespective of my actual edits, beliefs, ideas or intent.

I would like an advocate that I can agree is neutral, such as LaraLove or DGG or maybe Vassyana to review things before any action is take against me. Same for others.

I suggest that a committee of truly neutral subject matter experts, or simply editors truly neutral to the subjects be set up to deal with sourcing in paranormal areas. "Do you feel neutral toward issues of the paranormal?" Should be the question. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DGG

I think the "endorsements" above show why it might not actually work--the disagreement between different arbitrators over the standards for these articles is fairly complete. Everyone things that they are neutral. I can predict what will happen, which is continual appeals from it, carried on in every forum possible, just as present. And i do not think the problem is that hopeless either, because I think the community is evolving standards. The problem is not individual topics--the problem is what degree of tolerance we should have for disruptive actions by good editors. Personally, I don't think they should get the essentially free ride they have at present.

If we do something of this sort, I would not leave it to individual admins. or editors. What I think we'd need is the equivalent of a topic ban noticeboard, and some degree of practical consensus would be required. I remember the fate of the community ban noticeboard and I'm a little skeptical. DGG (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seicer

I believe that, if implemented properly, could be an effective tool in finally ending the heated disagreements between the "anti-science" and "pro-science" camps. I do not believe it will lead to an end of hidden bias or blatant bias -- nor should it -- but that the implementation of a topic ban could finally kill the endless attacks against other editors and administrators, and could finally open the door for new editors, with fresh viewpoints and dialogues, to come in and edit.

I'd also like to echo GRBerry's comments above. There are multiple editors who have developed "watch lists" of other editors and administrators that they either want banned, or removed from various positions at Wikipedia. I will not go into specifics here regarding that, but it's a statement that's been made numerous times previously, here and elsewhere, and that it is leading to a serious divide in how, as editors and administrators, can resolve this long-standing conflict. I'd like to see a "topic ban noticeboard," but I am afraid that it would fall to either inactivity or hidden bias. seicer | talk | contribs 19:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kww

I understand the intention, and fear the result. I think that in order to maintain standing as an encyclopedia, we need be more specific, and actually take a side in favor of facts. Discretionary sanctions should be made available, targeted towards editors that make edits stating or implying a factual basis for pseudoscientific or paranormal topics. If we did that for a while, the heat and rancor would die down, because people attempting to corrupt the encyclopedia would eventually be eliminated.Kww (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tom Butler

Any effort that would make it possible for administrators to more effectively arbitrate content disputes would help. I have been treated as poorly by some admins as I have by some rank and file editors, so I am not in favor of giving any individual admin more authority. Perhaps a cadre of three or five editors would provide protection to both sides.

Lets face it, an arbitration takes way too long, and as I can see, they have hardly any effect except to more clearly define the sides. If an admin blocks an appeal to authority, then the person making the appeal is discredited and the abusive editor becomes more bullet proof. In fact, Wikipedia is not able to manage editors who are willing to game the system.

I have only edited on a few paranormal articles so I may be unaware of some of the grievances. Nevertheless, from my viewpoint, it is unrealistic to imagine that it is possible to arbitrate content disputes without deciding on content--not taking sides, but saying what the article will include. I would be comfortable with a venue in which I could present my viewpoint to a panel, editors with a contrary viewpoint could do the same and the panel would decide the article based on their "fair and informed" decision of what was presented. Give each presenter 500 words and ten diffs. I think I could find a way to live with that and I am certainly willing to try. Tom Butler (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, most of us "believers" just want to have the articles you are complaining about explain what the subject is said to be or thought to be without trying to say what you think it is or what you want the public to believe. I would be interested in how you would apply the treatment used for articles on religious beliefs to paranormal articles. For instance, I suspect that not even members of the WikiProject Rational Skepticism would attempt to make Wikipedia say that the Catholic Church is not real. Can you apply a similar standard to the EVP article without characterizing as real or not real? Can you just say what it is reported to be? Doing so would certainly stop a lot of the content disputes. Tom Butler (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jossi

Agree in principle with Vassyana's proposal, with the caveats presented by DGG, that is to have a place in which we can assess some measure of administrators' consensus when applying broad restrictions such as topic bans or blocks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:B

This has too much potential for abuse the way it is worded. Some people consider anything they disagree with to be pseudoscience and would attempt to apply this far beyond its scope. (For example, most evangelical Christians believe in something other than atheistic evolution, therefore someone who edits Bobby Bowden is editing an article on pseudoscience, right?) It needs to be spelled out what this applies to - theories of origin, alternative medicine, paranormal, etc. --B (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Baegis

I'm going to have to agree with B on this one. There are some areas which qualify as pseudoscience but which do not need this sort of protection. The ID related articles are stable for the most part, because there are a great number of fine editors who are very active on those pages. They are occasionally disrupted, but not nearly enough for the scope of this proposal to be anything more than a hindrance. The areas that this will apply to need to be better spelled out. There are probably thousands of articles that fall within the pseudoscience area, especially if broadly defined. And if BLP's are included in that, ie the ones of proponents of pseudoscience, there are an even greater number of articles. I would wager that it is pretty clear the the biggest problems lie in the CAM area and the paranormal areas. Focusing on the most problematic areas is a better idea than a big sweeping probation. Baegis (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

There is a long-standing issue with pseudoscience, fringe and paranormal articles. The sources which discuss these subjects are typically either wholly uncritical, or dedicated sceptics. The fact that the mainstream science community does not accept paranormal claims is hard to source, because scientists do not publish papers saying that hokum is hokum. The result is a series of in-universe articles on fictional topics. Added to that, we have believers in these paranormal ideas whose primary function on Wikipedia is to attempt to have them documented as reality, not a fringe belief system.

I do believe we can make this work by applying the same methods as are applied in articles on religious belief systems. The article on Saint Alban documents the verifiable facts which are undisputed, being the identity and martyrdom, documented in local Roman records; discusses the mythology of the Holy Well; and discusses the cult of Alban. I think we can document the paranormal belief system in the same way, but we have too many people asserting that it is real. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Antelan

My own personal sentiment is that the current options for enforcement have not yet been applied in a stringent way, and should not be broadened until they have been fully tested. That said, I share Vassayana's frustration, and would hope that this will serve to push administrators to use the tools that they have been given. Antelantalk 17:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

Given the occasionally contentious nature of the discussions regarding this subject, perhaps it might be possible for the ArbCom to help in the selection of a group of editors who would be able to function in much the same way as the recently created cultural disputes group is supposed to. It might also be useful for some of the religion and pseudoscience content as well, given the often disparate opinions there. Might it be possible to expand the remit of the existing cultural disputes group, and possibly its membership, to include these other matters as well, or alterntely create similar groups for these matters? John Carter (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Filll

Although I understand the desire to come up with a quick fix or a magic bullet here, I do not think that more enforcement is the answer. I have observed how well more enforcement and greater empowerment of admins worked at homeopathy and related articles, and I have to admit I was somewhat underwhelmed. I have also encountered a fair number of administrators who are FRINGE proponents or antiscience themselves, so just giving all administrators more power is not a very well-reasoned response. I would like to see a more measured and careful approach for dealing with this kind of problem, such as those potential options being considered at the discussion lead by User:Raul654 at [86].--Filll (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel

The Homeopathy discretionary sanctions have passed (by virtue of having six support and one abstention, which reduces the majority to six), and the case is moving towards being closed. Per Kirill below, who said that the Committee was waiting to see which version of discretionary sanctions was prefered, I think the Committee has decided to this effect (the other discretionary sanctions proposal in that case only recieved one support, so the disparity is evident).

Therefore I propose the following motion:

--- START PROPOSED MOTION ---

The following remedy is added to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist:

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 Pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) 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. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; 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.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. 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. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Uninvolved administrators

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.

Logging

All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Log of blocks and bans.

--- END PROPOSED MOTION ---

Regards, Daniel (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • We are currently looking into some modifications to the discretionary sanction ruling as part of the Homeopathy case; while I'm open to imposing them here, I'd prefer to avoid doing so until we decide on the better wording there. Kirill (prof) 01:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Kirill. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=220408134"