Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Valjean (talk | contribs) at 17:42, 3 January 2009 (→‎Statement by Fyslee: Due caution in voting. Please be careful here! Comments on motions.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Active editnotice

WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review (WP:RREV).
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
Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Hemanshu

Initiated by Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter at 18:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

I'm requesting that a motion be filed to desysop Hemanshu. For many months there's been issues with his communication, or lack of it. He's been edit warring on 2012 sporadically and this led to an RfC on him being filed. At this RfC, 16 people supported a desysopping due to severe lack of communication with no dissenting views. We all know that communication is important for administrators and in the last three years, I can't see a single talk page or meta page edit from Hemanshu despite serious concerns about his editing being raised. I don't believe that a full case is required, simply a motion desysopping him due to behaviour not befitting that of an administrator with a caveat that he can get the tools back by appeal to the committee or by going through an RfA. Note, he's currently blocked and the clerks should look at his page for a statement. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Vassyana

Hemanshu had been blocked for one week for exactly the same edit just eight weeks ago. With no discussion or talk page edit he comes back and starts the edit war again - that's disruption and certainly block worthy when he's been blocked for exactly the same thing before, the same edits in fact. I personally probably wouldn't have blocked for that long, but the previous block was one week and he came back and made exactly the same edits so I was always going to match the previous block for it (which wasn't overturned). Please don't turn this into my conduct - I'm always more than happy to reverse blocks if someone disagrees, and even if this was a bad block it's certainly not arbitration worthy. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 11:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MBisanz

I originally brought this case as in October as Request_for_desysop_and_block_of_administrator_Hemanshu. At the time arbcom felt there was no case to take and an arb advised opening an RFC. An RFC was opened with an overwhelming (I think unanimous actually) consensus to desysop. Since the RFC closed, Hemanshu has returned to the same activities that resulted in the first RFAR filing and the RFC. All attempts to communicate have failed and clearly there is nothing more the community can do, as it is of very strong consensus for desysopping, even though enwiki lacks a community driven desysop. I concur with Ryanposs' suggestion of a desysop by motion. MBisanz talk 18:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sam

This deletion [1] of his user talk page was made while he was blocked, which is generally discouraged for non-retiring editors.

These reverts were made using administrative rollback [2] [3] which is generally discouraged and which arbcom has found in the past to be an abuse of administrative privileges.

Further, failing to discuss administrative actions like these has been found in the past by arbcom to be grounds for desysopping and is currently reflected as such in the administrator conduct policy. MBisanz talk 19:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Vassyana

The edits Hemanshu made were the exact same edits that resulted in 24 hour and 1 week blocks by WJBscribe, I suspect the community would have had no problem is Ryan had merely indef'd Hemanshu quietly, based on the unanimous consent of the RFC. A one week block followed by a second one week block for the exact same reason is generally in line with, if not a generous application, of the blocking policy. MBisanz talk 22:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick

The view of the committee in the past has been that poor communication and a reluctance to explain their actions are traits that are undesirable in an administrator [4]. Nick (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel

Although I'm sure all our new arbitrators are aware of it, the motion to desysop CSCWEM was based off a very similar set of facts. Daniel (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, and you can move this somewhere else if you like: CSCWEM regularly issued a large volume of blocks, a number of which were questionable. His refusal to communicate had a direct impact on his role as an administrator. Different from this case in that respect. Avruch T 00:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. Deleting user talk pages while blocked without a deletion reason, or refusing to justify it, is just as bad. Daniel (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Master&Expert

I agree that desysopping Hemanshu is the best course of action; not only because of a lack of communication, but also because he's been out of touch with Wikipedia and its policies for quite some time.

He had just made this edit to his talk page, in case anybody was interested. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Deacon of Pndapetzim

Now that the "age of motions" appears fully to have dawned, what is the point of having a full case? He's got almost no edits since October. Regarding this and desysopping ... see the point made by Sam Blacketer. Anyhows, arbcom doesn't tend to remove admin rights from people because they're in a few unholy content disputes. I know that today a new bunch have come in, but previous arbcom members have been reluctant to remove adminship for such minor and easy to deal with offences. It would be impossible for it to do so anyways, as if the bit were removed for all but a select group of righteous non-editors there wouldn't be enough admins. What is it they call it when a bunch of Chimps attack and kill a fellow Chimp? That's what this looks like. He's just came to the attention of the wrong people and has no network of bffs. Scores worse than this out there! Please to the new group, don't let your first action to be a totally embarrassing overreaction that could haunt you later. With the Age of Motions, he can be desysopped quickly if he ignores some more moderate remedy any one of you is free to propose now. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Party 2}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
Arbitrator should note this. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 06:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/3/0/1)

  • Comment - I see a single block and five deletions by Hemanshu in the whole of the last year (I have not investigated them to see if they were good). The problems complained about would seem to cover ordinary editing rather than use of sysop powers. It has not normally been the practice to desysop users if they are edit-warring; it is normally only misuse of sysop powers which results in desysopping. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There's a clear sentiment to remove Hemanshu's sysop bit, it appears at first glance to be a fairly clear-cut matter, and it is something only ArbCom can handle as a practical matter. However, arbitration requests expose all involved parties to scrutiny. It seems more than a bit excessive to block a sporadic editor for a week for one revert over WP:LAME-worthy disagreement about article formatting. Considering the usual (lighter) sanctions for much more substantial (in terms of content) and disruptive edit warring, it gives the strong appearance of punitive blocking. I'm more inclined to open a case than to act through a motion, if for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of a tar-and-feather party. I will wait for responses to my concerns and from Hemanshu before moving to accept a motion or open a case. Vassyana (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept, unless this is resolved through voluntary resignation, noted as a possibility by Carcharoth. Vassyana (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, provisionally, in a full case; lack of communication from an administrator is, in my eyes, one of the most problematic behavior the bit can engender. The committee has historically taken a dim view of unresponsive admins, and I am inclined to agree. Hemanshu may yet make a statement here or, failing that, have an opportunity to respond in a full case. Additionally, the opportunity of a full decision will allow the committee to formally set down the criteria by which unresponsive administrators will be evaluated. — Coren (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (As a note, if the motion to desysop below passes, the case is obviously mooted and this changes to a reject). — Coren (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wait to see if Hemanshu responds. Lack of comms from an admin is very disconcerting. The crux of the issue here is him, so unless more evidence arises to show an issue(s) with others, I'd take this by motion vice full arbcom case. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hemanshu says he doesn't care if he's blocked and/or desyssoped and asked his account be deleted. I told him it is impossible to delete an account. I really don't see what a full case will accomplish here over a motion. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reject in favor of motion to desyssop. See explanation below. I've also explained to Hemanshu on his talk page that he can ask for a rename and continue editing or use WP:RTV. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept per Coren. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Wizardman 02:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that if someone wishes to create a motion instead of a full case they can go ahead and do so, based on the comment Hemanshu left, although my accept remains for now. Wizardman 15:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - even though Hemanshu has commented on their talk page, still awaiting further developments. May not need case or motion, but some sort of motion seems most likely to deal with this the best way. Carcharoth (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In light of this edit, suggest discussion takes place on Hemanshu's talk page to explain the options (and that account deletion can't be done, though various options approaching that are available) and ascertain exactly what is wanted (including confirmation of desysop), followed by unblock to allow voluntary departure. Carcharoth (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Side comment
  • I also note Mbisanz's link seems wrong, unless something's gone wrong with the edit histories. Ah. MBisanz added an anchor to a diff link. I knew he couldn't be "The Enchantress Of Florence"! :-) Some of us have the "show the whole page below the diff" option disabled in our preferences. So a diff shows only the diff bit and nothing else, so the anchor doesn't work. An anchored oldid version would work for everyone, such as this. Should have realised what was going on there. Carcharoth (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline I think that ongoing events are likely to make a full case unnecessary. Agree with Deacon of Pndapetzim, that most likely this situation can be handled with a motion. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tending towards decline as it looks like he is resigning. Given burnout, maybe the quickest way to deal with this is a 3 month desysop (as he is asking) after which he can apply to the committee to get it back if he feels like coming back. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to desysop Hemanshu

There are 17 active arbitrators, of which 3 are abstaining, so 8 votes are a majority.

1) As evidenced by Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hemanshu, the community has lost its confidence in Hemanshu as an admin. His failure to communicate in an effort to address concerns is also disconcerting, as is his being blocked three times in the last few months. Admins need to be held to a high standard and retain the confidence of the community. Therefore Hemanshu is desysopped.

Support:
  1. Support — Rlevse • Talk • 20:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. In general, I am not in favour of voluntary desysop + request restoration of sysop from committee. Given the comments on the users talk, I would oppose a motion for that in this specific case. The committee has enough to do without shackling another user to us. RFA is the appropriate venue for desysoped users to regain the confidence of the community. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In some limited situations (not this one) I do support giving an admin the option of either having a RFA or going to the Committee. But in this particular situation, irrespective of whether it is a voluntary request for desysop or one done by ArbCom, I agree that a RFA should be required for the return of his tools since he has lost the confidence of the community. The Community has all of the facts, and there would be no reason for ArbCom to be involved. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It would have been better for everyone had he voluntarily resigned; but there's no sense in waiting indefinitely for this. Kirill 23:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. He shouldn't even be given a voluntary option. Easy choice imo. Wizardman 02:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm afraid that, after a clearcut RFC/U such as this, any voluntary desysop would be under a cloud anyways. — Coren (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. It seems pointless to delay the inevitable. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. No evidence has been presented of significant problems relating to use of sysop powers. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. My preference is a voluntary desysop by Hemanshu because I feel that is what he intended to happen by his comments. Per our past customs and practice, this would mean that he would have to go through a RFA if he wants the sysop access back. If he does not respond to us over the next few days then I agree that an ArbCom desysop will be needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Flo and Brad. --bainer (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Before we do a desysop, I want to clarify with Hemanshu if he wants to make a voluntary request to remove his sysop access and then take a wikibreak. This is possibly what he intended to happen when he made the request for his account to be deleted. If he wants to make the desysop request himself, but does not know how, then we can assist him. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Moving to Oppose, for now. I might adjust my vote again after I look into the situation further today. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I think the above is reasonable. Voluntary plus 3 month layoff minimum plus request from committee if returns. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    On his talk page he says he doesn't care if he loses his bit, but that could just be his frustration, and this all presupposes he communicates with us. Even so, a voluntary desyssop does not deal with the problems that led to this RFAR and those issues would need to be made very clear to him if he does this voluntarily and then wants it back. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Waiting for next set of responses from Hemanshu (if any). Clerks should arrange to monitor his talk page until the block expires. If, when the block expires, editing resumes without response, or there is no further response after the block expires, then I would support a desysop, unless this motion passes first (which I wouldn't oppose). Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per other abstainers above. I would prefer to wait a few more days to try to see if this situation can be resolved in a more dignified fashion, given that no emergency exists. (In relation to another of my colleagues' comments, I would also prefer that the term "under a cloud", in the context of Wikipedia disputes, should not be used.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The block does not stop him from using his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point I was making. Your note on his talk page said: "Please read over the motion and commentary and comment at RFAR or here". He can't comment at RFAR while blocked, hence my comment about monitoring his talk page. There is no rush here. We can wait until it is clear what Hemanshu will do next (if anything). Carcharoth (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Refactored this bit under a discussion header to avoid messing up the votes.[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 go 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
Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.


Request to amend prior case: Special enforcement on BLP

Statement by Barberio

I ask for review of this case, in particular the Special enforcement on biographies of living persons remedy on the following grounds,

  • The process created by this has,
    • Generally been neglected in use by the majority of administrators, and has only seen formal use twice. [5] One logged incident could have been enacted under existing speedy deletion rules, and the other case resulted in escalation to Arbitration to be resolved.
    • Appears to have been used by a minority as grounds to threaten use of the process in warnings that were not logged on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Special_enforcement_log [6]
    • Uses the term "Any and all means", which may be read to mean they may ignore all other standards, policy and expectations of administrator behaviour.
    • Despite several concerns being raised about the wording of the process/policy, change of it was directly barred on the grounds that it would require appeal to the arbitration committee as they held full ownership over it as a remedy.
  • The Arbitration Policy at the time of the case did not allow for such process/policy creating remedies. And the Arbitration Committee made no attempt to alter the policy to grant these extended powers.
  • An RFC on Arbitration Conduct had overwhelming opposition to allowing such process/policy creating remedies. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee

I would like an answer to the following questions,

  1. In light of the lack of correct use of the process, and it's apparent misuse in incorrect threatening warnings, should this process/policy be marked as "historical" or "failed policy" or allowed to continue?
  2. What was the intent of the phrase "any and all means" used, and on reflection was this wording appropriate?
  3. Did the Arbitration Policy allow for such process/policy creating remedies?
  4. Should the Arbitration Policy allow for such process/policy creating remedies?
  5. Can such processes/policy if created be fully owned by the Arbitration Committee with no ability for community review as with other processes/policy?
  6. What lessons if any should be taken in future arbitration committee conduct from this?

Note: I would appreciate independent answers from all active members of the committee, considering the importance of this issue. --Barberio (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it would be appropriate to allow the process/policy to stand if the issue has been 'punted' into the distance and review postponed until some unknown later date. If you can, please provide a specifict date that this 'review' will be conducted.

Otherwise, consider this an request to conduct this review immediately, or I will open an RfC on the topic and the community may conduct one. --Barberio (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A response to Statement by Daniel.

The results of the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee called for some pretty clear changes to the Arbitration Policy. I proposed that we put some of them to ratification at the arbitration vote.

However, I was promised that this was not needed because the committee had taken the call for change on advisement, and Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating would be enacted. So I withdrew on the understanding that the Arbitration policy would eventually be changed.

No movement had been made on that since October.

Yes, I am feeling rather "ticked off" at the Arbitration Committee for failing to follow through on promises of reform. And I am reluctant to accept promise now that they will look into it later.

I am prepared to state this... If this review does not happen in a timely manner then the issue should rightfully be removed from their hands. --Barberio (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ps. I admire the irony of being told off for demanding immediate action, as well as being told of for trying to get problems with Arbitration addressed for A YEAR. --Barberio (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Kirill. Yes, I am calling for amendment of the remedy. The questions asked are directed at identifying issues with the remedy and it's results, and how that would effect any amendment of that remedy. While the question of if the remedy as written was acceptable under the arbitration policy at the time is 'constitutional', I do feel it is an issue which needs to be addressed when amending it.

However, I am willing to drop issues of 'constitutional' scope, if I can have a binding promise of a date at which the ArbCom are willing to report to the community on reform. Unfortunately, the committee has a poor past record of responding timely to issues, and I can not help but feel that enough time was already given to respond during and after the RfC. So a deadline by which the committee will provide a report on how it will reform would be a great help to prevent distrust that the process will not occur at all --Barberio (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the votes, the Arbitration Committee is reluctant to give any indication that while they accept they should review this, they will not do so now, nor will they give any specified time at which they will do so, nor any fixed deadline by which they will provide a report. And it's odd that 'the new membership has only just arrive' is used as an excuse considering promises by candidates 'to hit the ground running', and that candidates could not be ignorant of these issues considering the public RfC.

So here's a direction...

Provide a report by April 3rd 2009 on the review of the issues involved. If I don't get anything back by then, I will restart the process to change the arbitration policy by notifying the foundation that we'll be having a ratification vote on the changes to the arbitration policy that were recommended during the RfC.

Yes. This is an ultimatum. I don't mean to prod you with sticks, this isn't a crusade, but it is direction that you can't keep saying you will 'investigate reform' without providing any. If you really can't provide some kind of report on reform in three months, then this issue is probably going to have to bypass you. --Barberio (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Jayvdb. The 'overwhelming opposition to creation of new policy/process' came from Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee#No_New_Policy. So there already was traction on overruling the arbcom's decision to create new policy/process.

However, administrators who support the use of the new policy/process have reverted any attempt to deprecate the policy, on the grounds that it is owned by the Arbitration Committee and can not be changed by the community.

Can I take this group shrugging of shoulders as sign that you don't own it, and the community can do what it wants with the page, or is Arbitration Committee ownership still claimed? --Barberio (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to stress again one of the reasons that this needs urgent review.

The new policy/process appears to have been used by a minority as grounds to threaten use of the process in warnings that were not logged on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Special_enforcement_log [7]. This appears to be being taken under the "Any and all means" clause, but without being logged there is not ability to ensure that it is being used appropriately, and not simply as a means to stifle otherwise appropriate discussion or content.

Since the Arbitration Committee have claimed full ownership of this process/policy, enough administrators are willing to block any community effort to alter the process/policy. This means that the community can not alter the process/policy, and it seems that the only changes that will be accepted are ones directly from the Arbitration Committee.

You broke it. So either you fix it, or allow the community to fix it. --Barberio (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another reply on this...

The community can not alter the policies involved, because Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/BLP_Special_Enforcement has turned it into an "Arbitration owned" policy.

Even if the community could, what policy would be acceptable by the arbitration committee? How do we know what the requirements are going to be for you to decide to lift Special Enforcement? Can we then go back and change the BLP policy later, or is it going to be carved in stone again?

Frankly, and to risk being incivil, you guys haven't thought any of this through have you? You've not sat down and worked out the implications of this mess. You're now refusing to do so, or at least refusing to say when you will do so, despite it being a major issue, and one that decided a lot of people's votes in the election. And you're refusing to allow the community to fix it, by still claiming ownership of the process/policy.

Why are you acting in a way that damages this wiki?--Barberio (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel

I don't think threatening the Committee with an RfC if they don't do exactly what you want, right now, is either appropriate or an intelligent move. The community cannot overrule this motion, except by overruling each individual application of it, so a community RfC is pointless unless, of course, you simply intend to continue your crusade against the Committee which I have observed over the last year. Daniel (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Request noted. I think an open review is needed here, though my views are that this is all to do with WP:ADMIN and arbitration and administrative enforcement, and not really to do with the BLP policy. So from my point of view, the question is whether to review this 'special enforcement' by itself, or together with reviews of other enforcement areas (such as arbitration enforcement). I also note Barberio's six questions, but am deferring specific answers until an actual review process takes place. Carcharoth (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline Will be included as part of Arbitration Enforcement review remedy, so I see no need for a special review of this particular enforcement remedy now. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is being asked here? The title is "Request to amend" (emphasis mine), the first sentence asks for review, and the rest is a series of questions; Barberio, are you requesting a change to the ruling (and, if so, what is that change) or a general discussion about the constitutional role of the Committee? The former may be a matter of some urgency (although, if the ruling isn't even being used, I'm not sure why that would be); the latter is not, and a request for clarification is not a good venue for it in any case. If you're just looking for reform, we're working on it; poking us with pointy sticks, while no doubt entertaining, will unfortunately not make it move along any faster. ;-) Kirill 23:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per FloNight. I will point out that over half of the current committee has taken office just over 24 hours ago. While this is definitely something that will be addressed, we have not had sufficient time (or attendance) to establish an agenda and timeline, and both must be somewhat fluid to allow for activity on this page. Risker (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline but with careful reasons:
    1. I was the single strongest opposer to the BLPSE decision, Barerio. I described it as a extremely worrying misjudgement since in my view it would not resolve the problem but escalate it. Even so, for me, it is within the remit of the committee:
      WMF and the community have both agreed BLP is crucially important and has very high standing as policy; both agree admins enforce policy. In a more and more pressing and difficult situation, Wikipedia Arbitration may lean towards the draconian to solve a communal problem. The concern was about resolving the perennial disputes over BLP enforcement, and the undermining of BLP. The decision was admins should apply the tools they have very hard indeed if needed to procure BLP compliance. Giving this a name ("special enforcement") does not change that this was an extreme version of ArbCom's usual role:- ie, that given a conflict, Arbcom's role is deciding the best way existing consensus-accepted policies apply and are interpreted in the situation, to good effect and for best benefit of the project. Admins have a wide scope of tool usage discretion within communal norms. Tool usage can range from "very gentle" to "very firm". In this case the answer was "Policy and norms are served best by using admin access very firmly indeed in the case of BLP disruption, and by setting enforcement measures to ensure they are able to use their tools to enforce policy fully". This was clearly felt by the Arbitrators to be situated well within existing policies (although clearly a draconian use for an exceptional problem), and I agree on that point, regardless of whether I personally do or don't support the actual decision.
    2. It is normal when saying something may be done a given way, or enforced (eg any sanction) for Arbcom to also spell out exactly how that should work - who may act, what guidance they have on acting, how enforcement should work, and so on. This formed the bulk of that ruling. Apart from the draconian nature of the matter being enforced, it's quite a usual type of content for a decision.
    3. Arbitration looks forward. It's clear there may be merit in revisiting this, but to pull the current view to pieces is not going to happen here. It's something one might do in reviewing the entire area of enforcement, which is a more rounded issue, and is likely to be looked at anyway, as FloNight and Kirill said.
    FT2 (Talk | email) 03:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline This is already high on the agenda for review in due course. The current arbitrators are reform-minded but most of us have only been in the job twenty-four hours and Rome, as they say, wasn't built in a day. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I personally think BLPSE was overreaching, endorse it being deprecated, but the committee has got buckley's chance of devising an improvement to this complex problem as a quick motion. Also, I dont see an overwhelming community consensus at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee#WP:BLPSE, so if you want traction on this ... please do initiate Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BLPSE. --John Vandenberg (chat) 11:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No New Policy (which I strongly agree with) was not a community endorsed view that the committee should overturn all previous remedies that were overreaching. I just told you how the community can fix it: the community needs to develop a NGBLPSE so that the committee remedy can be deprecated. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Placeholder, to state that I will post my thoughts on this tonight or tomorrow (I'm in transit with limited access at the moment). Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal by Everyking

I request that the ArbCom lift all the remaining sanctions applied to me under the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3. The restrictions applied to me in this case were first applied in November 2005 and were expanded and extended in July 2006. In November 2007, some of the sanctions expired, but when I asked the ArbCom to remove the other sanctions in February 2008, it chose to uphold them (except for one restriction, which had previously been suspended and was formally lifted when I made that appeal). I do not wish to argue about the merits of the orginal case against me; the opinions held by myself and certain other long-time users (including some former arbitrators) regarding the case's merits are very different, and I don't want to stir up controversy by arguing an appeal on the basis of innocence. I merely ask the ArbCom to recognize that the sanctions serve no purpose at this time and lift them.

These sanctions, although they have no practical effect on my editing, seriously affect my reputation as a Wikipedian; arguably they have made me a community pariah, and I feel that is deeply unfair. While I have been embittered by the imposition of these sanctions, I have continued to edit devotedly and remain firmly loyal to the project. I ask that the ArbCom restore me to the status of a Wikipedian in good standing and that there be no more official tarnish on my reputation. Everyking (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Avruch, the appeal restriction says that it starts at the time of the motion's passage—I have not made any appeal since then, so by my reasoning I should be able to make an appeal at any time. Only if I made an appeal (like this one), and it failed, would that restriction come into play. Everyking (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I need to discuss some other things here. First of all, some people are raising the issue of the one year appeal restriction. As I explained above, I have not used an appeal since the time that the appeal restriction was imposed and therefore I do not believe it would be fair to interpret that as barring an appeal at this time. The difference in interpretation, apparently, is: does the restriction mean that I have one appeal per year, beginning after one year has passed, or does it means that I have one appeal per year, beginning the date the motion passed? I don't believe the former is a reasonable interpretation.
Regarding Phil's statement: I was to stress, as strongly as possible, that I want absolutely nothing to do with him and would be perfectly content to forget his existence entirely. I have no objection to a restriction barring me from interacting with him per se; my only objection, which goes to the very crux of the case back in 2005, is that the restriction is applied only to me and leaves Phil free to say whatever he likes to or about me. From my perspective, it seems that applying sanctions to only one party endorses Phil's claim of "wikistalking", whereas a mutual restriction would be a neutral and fair arrangement that acknowledges that a certain two Wikipedians are better off ignoring each other. In fact, if I had to choose between a mutual restriction and no restriction at all, I would choose a mutual restriction—that is what I requested back in 2005, and that is what I would prefer now.
Phil's allegations about my off-site conduct are totally inappropriate. His blog-format short story about murdering people could be genuinely perceived as disturbing if one did not know the context, but I am happy to acknowledge that when the blog is understood to be fiction there is no basis for serious concern. About 18 months ago, I contacted Phil privately in hopes that we could set aside our differences, but he was not interested in doing that. Well, fine—as I stated above, I just want to be free of the stigma associated with a one-sided restriction.
I also want to state that I am insulted that Phil would blame me for something written on ED about him—we should not forget that I am also the subject of an ED article that accuses me of illegal conduct, and that article is primarily the result of the misrepresentations about me that were presented/promoted by Phil in the EK2 case back in 2005. If Phil wants to blame me for his ED article, let him take some blame for mine. Personally, I think ED is an abhorrent website that ought to be shut down, and I have repeatedly voted for the deletion of its WP article on the grounds that it is deeply offensive to Wikipedians. Everyking (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the following reasoning from Phil—"Regarding a mutual restriction, I have no desire to interact with Everyking, and this should be easily born out by my past contributions - I have not made any moves to interact with him since 2005, and I do not have any desire to."—justifies the absence of a restriction on him, why should the same reasoning not justify the removal of the restriction on me? Everyking (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by A Nobody (talk)

I think that it is a new year and that we should give Everyking a new chance and fresh start. Thus, I support the request made above. Happy New Year! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Tony Sidaway

The sanctions serve as a deterrent. Lest those who would go to external sites and try to subvert Wikipedia should prevail. --TS 04:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Avruch

I filed a previous appeal of this case, most of which can be found [here]. There was a previous motion as well.

While I specifically opposed this element of the passed motion, the language could be seen to bar review of this case until Feb 23 2009 (by limiting review of the case to once per year beginning the date of the motions passing). Avruch T 04:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to Carcharoth's request to Everyking that he stop "wikilawyering" the one year ban, it should be noted that two arbitrators have commented upon it with the obvious belief that this appeal violates that ban. Clarifying his own interpretation of the appeal restriction is not "wikilawyering." You're aware, I'm sure, that as an arbitrator you will encounter in nearly every case quasi-legal standards of writing and interpretation. This might strike you as wikilawyering, but that epithet is mainly relevant on article talkpages where folks involved in a dispute attempt to mechanically impose the details of their own interpretation of policy.

I sympathize with Phil - something similar, minus the Wikipedia context, happened to me. But even Phil does not directly blame Everyking either for the WR thread or what it led to. Everyking is not blameless, and no one (least of all Everyking) has claimed that. But years have passed without incident, and its time to move on. Arbitration should not result in a permanent scarlett letter for good editors with a checkered past. Avruch T 04:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing, to Rlevse: This particular appeal is unrelated to the prior confusion over seemingly conflicting passing motions. That confusion was cleared up. The only other thing I'd say is that the appeal restriction prohibited Everyking only, and others were and are free to make requests on their own initiative. Avruch T 04:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Acalamari

I have long believed that the sanctions on Everyking are unnecessary, and I am disappointed that they are still in place here in 2009. Everyking has made more than a grand effort to prove why the sanctions are not necessary, and his behavior over 2008 and 2007 has been, in my opinion, excellent. I do not believe at all that Everyking would spend a long time improving, only to do something to get the sanctions re-instated. He has devoted a lot of his time to building the encyclopedia, and has contbributed more to here than most other editors have done, so it's clear he has the best of intentions at heart.

I should also note that, regarding Everyking's actual standing in the community, he was nominated for adminship in August of last year, where he received 66% support (note that this RfA was supported by a then-new arbitrator; and opposed by a current, and also a now-ex arbitrator). In addition, there were several people who opposed/went neutral that, while they didn't yet believe he was ready to again be an admin, they complimented him on his work, his overall improvement, and many did trust him as an editor. Based on this, I believe that Everyking is in good standing within the community, and that the sanctions on Everyking were further marginalized by the community input there. While the issue of the sanctions cannot be based on that RfA alone, I should mention that it was a chance for the community to judge Everyking, and at least two-thirds of the community support him.

As I said, I do not believe that Everyking would work hard to get his sanctions removed, only to do something to have them re-instated. I am still strongly of the opinion that removing Everyking's remaining sanctions will be beneficial to both him and the encyclopedia. Acalamari 20:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Phil Sandifer

I've avoided commenting on this issue on-wiki the past few times it has come up, but memories appear short, so I'll make this note public.

Two and a half years ago, on Wikipedia Review, there was a thread that led to somebody - I do not know who - calling the police near where I live with a complaint that I might be murdering homeless people. This resulted in my being subject to harassment and invasion of privacy by the police. In the course of the thread, it was speculated that it would be possible to either drive me out of my PhD program or off of Wikipedia.

Everyking was an active participant in this thread, regaling it with speculation on my mental state.

These efforts - which have continued past this thread - have genuinely painful consequences for me, including the first Google hit on my name - found whenever a prospective employer or one of my students Googles me - is a libelous ED page stemming largely from the results of the thread Everyking was an active participant in.

This, combined with the fact that Everyking's prohibition against commenting on me stemmed from the fact that he was aggressively wikistalking me. And that since that prohibition was put in place, he has constantly attempted to get out of it or have it weakened.

I request that the arbcom does not lift this prohibition. I do not care about the others, however, I request that, given the extreme toxicity of his past actions with regards to me, this basic level of protection for me be extended. I would further ask that the arbcom render this matter closed and to be reconsidered only by Jimbo so that I do not have to, every few months, worry about whether this much-needed protection is going to be brought to an end.

And as for the inevitable suggestion that I have some obligation to forgive and forget and extend a second chance, I respectfully suggest that it is not within the remand of the community to dictate what olive branches must be offered by people who have come under genuine real life threat for their service to this project. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a mutual restriction, I have no desire to interact with Everyking, and this should be easily born out by my past contributions - I have not made any moves to interact with him since 2005, and I do not have any desire to. Unless the committee is seriously concerned about the prospect of my interacting with Everyking, I would thus respectfully ask that speculative sanctions not be placed. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside comment by Cla68

I have interacted with Everyking often in-wiki and I've found him to be a good faith and dedicated editor. I just reviewed the prior arbcom cases he was involved in, and, as far as I can see, the main remaining legacy of those cases appears to be a dispute between Snowspinner (Phil Sandifer) and Everyking. Everyking states that he doesn't want to retry the previous cases, but Phil appears to be trying to do so in his statement above.

In my opinion, there seems to be enough blame to share between the two of them, but for some reason the hammer has fallen more heavily on Everyking than on Phil (in Wikipedia, that is). To resolve this for now, I would suggest suspending all of the sanctions against Everyking except for the one to stay away from Phil. I would propose, in addition, that an identical motion be made to tell Phil to stay away from Everyking. This would put things on an equal and fair footing between the two of them and I would hope would put this entire thing to rest and send two of our most dedicated editors back to improving articles, which both do so well [8] [9]. Cla68 (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

  • Arbitrators should note that neither of the threads Rlevse links to in his comment below was initiated by Everyking (and indeed, I did not see Everyking even comment on the March 2008 thread). - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 18:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Could we please have links to the various times this has been before the committee. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than the most recent case page, where most of the post-case discussions from here should have been logged, I found several diffs on the rejected requests page, going all the way back to 2004 (some are to do with stuff around the time of the first and second cases) - dates are case dates or when the thread was archived:
Details
  • December 2004 (rejected RFAR)
  • EK1 (January 2005)
  • February 2005 (clarification of EK1)
  • EK2 (March/April 2005)
  • May 2005 (withdrawn RFAR)
  • EK3 (July/August 2005 and then October/November 2005)
  • EK3 motion (December 2005)
  • EK3 motion (July 2006)
  • May 2007 (rejected appeal for EK3)
  • EK3 - music parole suspended for three months (November 2007)
  • February 2008 (EK3 motions passed)
  • March 2008 (problems with EK3 motions pointed out)
The last two are the most relevant. The first of those last two was logged at the case page. The last one of those last two should have been logged at the case page, but doesn't seem to have been. Hopefully there are not more appeals or motions missing from this list. Anyway, I followed the discussion the last time (in February and March 2008) about how two possibly contradictory motions were passed. Avoiding that this time would be a good idea. Carcharoth (talk) 05:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out I did miss some appeals (including the ones I thought hadn't been archived). They are listed at the EK3 case talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starting a new comment to directly address Phil's statement. Memories are probably short here because some of the new arbs (me included) were either not around, or were not aware at the time, or since, of the incident you refer to. Many thanks for giving your side of the story to us. As you say, you don't know who called the police, but the distress and ongoing problems this caused you, especially when combined with the offsite commentary, should be recognised when considering restrictions on Everyking. I agree with Risker that the avoidance sanction may need to be made permanent, but I am prepared to wait to see whether Everyking will voluntarily agree to such avoidance (or reconfirm such avoidance), with supervision if needed. It should also be noted that there are some things that Everyking could do that, even if it will not affect Phil's stance on this, may help improve Everyking's standing in the community - it is mostly the actions and comments made by Everyking in relation to all this that determine his standing in the community, not just what the Arbitration Committee think of all this. Agree with others that the other remaining sanctions can be lifted. Concern about excessive number of appeals by Everyking also noted, but if there is an opportunity to make progress here, let's take it. One final point: could all parties here (and others) please be sensitive to what is said on-wiki about this and, if necessary, e-mail the arbitration committee to check what is appropriate before posting responses. Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Responding briefly to Everyking's new statement (which was posted while I was writing the above). First point: please stop wikilawyering the year-long ban on appeals. You are being heard here, which should be good enough. As far as I'm concerned, a mutual restriction is up to Phil. I would suggest that if the restriction is maintained and you feel it is one-sided, that you e-mail the Arbitration Committee if you genuinely feel that Phil later comments on you for no good reason. No comment on the other points, as a public back-and-forth will not be productive here, for you or for Phil. Both you and Phil have had the chance to say something and it would now be best to wait and see what can be done, and to let others respond. I would strongly suggest that anything further from Phil or Everyking be e-mailed to the arbitration committee, or be kept very short and to the point. Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find merit in the appeal in light of, among other things, the time that has elapsed since the last discussion with no significant further issues involving this editor. Therefore, unless something unexpected comes to my attention in this thread in the next couple of days, I will offer a motion to lift all the remaining sanctions as no longer necessary. Should that motion fail, I will offer a set of alternative motions to vote on lifting each sanction individually, to avoid the confusing and arguably contradictory situation that arose last year. A clerk should kindly notify Phil Sandifer of this thread, as I believe that one of the remaining sanctions involves him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The irony of this being filed on the day the new arbs are empaneled is not lost on me. In this February 2008 ruling it clearly said requests would be reviewed not more than once a year: "Upon request by Everyking, these terms will be reviewed, but no more often than once per year, starting the date this motion passes." Then this March 2008 and this May 2008 thread came along. While I understand there is some confusion regrading this case and it should be cleared up, the numerous requests centering around it concern me. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support a motion that lifts all sanctions except that related to Phil Sandifer. The situation from whence that sanction arose (there was additional on- and off-wiki behaviour that is not detailed in Phil's statement) is of such a nature that I cannot foresee any interaction between Everyking and Phil Sandifer that will not be perceived by many as a rekindling of hostility, now or in the future. As such, I would not be opposed to considering the avoidance sanction to be permanent. Risker (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not yet 22 February. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In view of the background, the Phil Sandifer sanction doesn't seem so onerous to me and I can see advantages in making it permanent. How does the project gain from its lifting? --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From email: Cool Hand Luke is recused from any Everyking issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can recall, I've never had any significant direct contact with Everyking. My comments about him have occurred primarily during RFA and during Committee work. So I do not think that I need to recuse because of a bias formed from a personal discord between us. It is also worth noting that I've made comments about Phil Sandifer while doing Committee work so there is no reason to think that I would have a basis for favoring one side of this dispute over the other. But since the point of the Committee work is dispute resolution, and I think that there will be a better outcome in this situation if I recuse, I'm to do it. I'm doing this because Everyking appears to have the view that he is being unfairly targeted by past members of ArbCom, individually and as a group. So with my sincerest hope that if I abstain from commenting and have no involvement in this matter, the outcome will be better accepted by Everyking and he will be able to move on, I recuse. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, jumping the gun (per Sams comment) and the queue (sorry, but we have other fish to fry this week). John Vandenberg (chat) 14:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal#Use_of_unreliable_sources_by_Fyslee names Quackwatch as an unreliable source. Quackwatch has been recommended by major medical organisations (AMA, American Cancer Society) as well as numerous universities, newspapers, and journals (See article), and, furthermore, is used as a source in articles on the American Cancer Society website.[11] This finding should be simply thrown out. Although electronically published, it has reviewers, selectivity, and an advisory board. It is not merely a self-published source, it is a highly respected organisation, and thus a very, very useful source on some of the obscure fringe views it covers, but which other reliable sources are rare for. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Geoff: Can you point out the section on the evidence page where evidence was provided that it was not a reliable source? I see some people saying they dislike its point of view, or claiming that it is biased against alternative medicine and fringe topics, but no actual evidence. If such exist, please link. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Geoff:
If evidence was not presented during the case to support the finding, then your proposal, "Evidence has been presented that Quackwatch may be inadmissible as a source under policy", would, barring a very strong case for it being an unreliable source (which has not, nor really should be presented here [it should be presented to the community after this is dealt with]), make the Arbcom look bad, as it'd effectively be saying that a finding for which both sides agree no evidence was presented to justify was nonetheless right - despite such evidence still not having been presented. Better to remand it to the community, and the cases for and against can be presented at the appropriate venue: WP:RSN. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Coren:
The finding is entitled "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee". If the committee did not intend to name Quackwatch as an unreliable source, then they did an appallingly bad job at getting their meaning across. As well,the committee has repeatedly found, in numerous cases, that encyclopaedias present science in line with mainstream thought. It's hard to see how this fits in with calling a widely-respected mainstream medical source "partisian" because it advocates for the mainstream scientific thought that the encyclopaedia should be using. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Fred Bauer
An Arbcom decision is not a place to advocate your point of view, particularly in the absence of strong, reliable sources that back it. There is no strong evidence for acupuncture: most studies with a positive result lack blinding, placebo, or large sample sizes, and large-scale studies tend to show random effects: a recent one, for instance, found sham acupuncture was better than real acupuncture - typical of statistical noise. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Carcharoth
I really don't think that "partisian" is appropriate either. It's a highly loaded term, and the change proposed does nothing to get at the heart of the problem: It would still be a decision that the mainstream medical view of Alternative medicine is "partisian". If the committee wants to focus on Fyslee's behaviour, it would have been possible to demonstrate a lack of NPOV in their edits at the time, at this late date, however, there doesn't seem much point to trying to reanalyse the situation and make a valid FoF; may as well just keep the caution to Fyslee to edit from NPOV in the remedies and consider that sufficient. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second response to Carcharoth
Be that as it may, I don't think that Arbcom should be ruling on it: The reliable sources noticeboard is perfectly capable of handling problems with specific Quackwatch articles or uses on a case-by-case basis. This is true for all sites, and there should be no need for the Arbcom to use loaded language to discuss one in particular. The simplest remedy, withdrawing the finding, does not mean that policies related to reliable sources are withdrawn; it's simply an acknowledgement that the Arbcom does not determine content, and that well-established community procedures could handle it instead. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals

  1. The finding "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" is withdrawn, and no longer forms part of the findings of Barrett v. Rosenthal. This does not affect any other findings, nor does it affect the caution to Fyslee to edit according to NPOV, as all editors are expected to.

There doesn't appear to be very good evidence of Fyslee having problematic edits - notably, the evidence section of the case has one section pointing out that most additions of Quackwatch by Fyslee were, in fact, reversions of removal of content when seen in context. I don't think this is a particularly crucial finding, nor are any of the remedies explicitly based on it, so I think it could be excised without problem, and this would also expunge a content decision. The best way to note its being withdrawn is probably to simply put the finding in strikeout tags and add a note saying "Withdrawn by the Arbitration committee on [Date]", with a link to the section of the talk page where this RfCl is moved.

I don't see merit in revisiting the case long enough to revise the finding, if the Arbcom wishes to, I am certain you can come up with something. I simply ask that you make sure it is justified by the case's evidence. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fyslee

archived bad start.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I just wish that some ArbCom members would review that particular "finding" and expunge it from public view. Even though it is blanked, the history is there. They should go to that "finding", write comments admitting it was baseless, and then blank it again. It was one of many disgraceful things that happened under that ArbCom, most performed by my now-banned opponent, her dishonorable mentor, and her major defender. Unfortunately this particular blunder was made by the ArbCom itself. "Findings" should be written based upon actual findings, proven facts, and evidence, not upon false charges brought by my cowardly attacker (other username), who has been silent since that time. He wrote the agenda for the ArbCom case and some ArbCom member just copied it and followed it without checking to see if the charges were true. You can't write a "finding" before something is actually proven to have been "found"! Upon examination, that charge, among several others, was never proven to be true at all, both as regards any misuse of Quackwatch, or of Quackwatch being unreliable. Wrong on both counts, and yet it still stands there and gets trotted out by fringe POV pushers regularly.

That finding was just plain wrong on both counts:

  1. I did not use or abuse unreliable sources;
  2. Quackwatch is not considered an unreliable source by the mainstream scientific and medical world, only by pushers of fringe POV, quacks, and known (and often convicted) healthfrauds.

-- Fyslee (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revised/calmer version

I wish that some ArbCom members would review that particular "finding" and expunge it from public view. Even though it is blanked, the history is there. They should go to that "finding", write comments admitting it was baseless, and then blank it again. It was one of many disgraceful things that happened under that ArbCom.

"Findings" should be written based upon actual findings, proven facts, and evidence, that have been presented, not written before presentation of evidence. Nor should they be based upon false charges (they were shown to be false) brought by my attacker (other username), who has been silent since that time. He wrote the agenda for the ArbCom case and some ArbCom member just copied it and followed it without checking to see if the charges were true. One shouldn't write a "finding" before something is actually proven to have been "found"! Upon examination, that charge, among several others, was never proven to be true at all, both as regards any misuse of Quackwatch, or of Quackwatch being unreliable. Wrong on both counts, and yet it still stands there and gets trotted out by fringe POV pushers regularly.

That finding was just plain wrong on both counts:

  1. I did not use or abuse unreliable sources;
  2. Quackwatch is not considered an unreliable source by the mainstream scientific and medical world, only by pushers of fringe POV, quacks, and known (and often convicted) healthfrauds. A simple study of the many authoritative sources that recommend Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett (we only use a few in their articles) will give an idea of what mainstream science, medicine, universities, professors, librarians, consumer organizations, and governmental bodies, think of them, and it's very positive. They are considered authoritative and can be used as good opinions. Yes, attribution is a good idea, but don't give the impression that they shouldn't be used. For more comments on Quackwatch, I suggest reading the discussion at the other RfArb Workshop page.

-- Fyslee (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to DreamGuy
Thanks for pointing out my irritated tone. I basically copied it from another place and have now revised it to be more appropriate for this use. Thanks again. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to User:Backin72's many points
Of course there is "evidence that Barrett is biased against alternative medicine." He shares this bias with countless scientists and mainstream personages, many of them quite notable. Such a bias and vast experience as the world's foremost authority on quackery and healthfraud make him even more qualified to sift the chaff from the wheat when dealing with healthfraud and questionable claims. His bias and stance on evidence is the same (read here) as that held by many others, including Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM):
  • "It is time for the scientific community to stop giving alternative medicine a free ride. There cannot be two kinds of medicine -- conventional and alternative. There is only medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that has not, medicine that works and medicine that may or may not work. Once a treatment has been tested rigorously, it no longer matters whether it was considered alternative at the outset. If it is found to be reasonably safe and effective, it will be accepted. But assertions, speculation, and testimonials do not substitute for evidence. Alternative treatments should be subjected to scientific testing no less rigorous than that required for conventional treatments."[1]
He is a scientific skeptic, which means he holds extraordinary and fringe claims to a higher standard of evidence: "In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded." We follow the same verifiability principle here at Wikipedia. That is a legitimate and necessary form of "double standard", and it's one that is standard practice among scientists who possess critical thinking skills. You will always find Barrett in good company, along with other scientific skeptics, Nobel prize laureates, and notable authors. He was named as one of the top 20 scientific skeptics of the 20th century.[2][3] He thinks like other skeptics.
The wording of the Village Voice article should not be taken in isolation from Barrett's actual practice. He recommends and supports chiropractic for the things it is proven to be good for, but still opposes the widespread quackery, scams, and pseudoscientific claims that still plague the profession, and especially the pseudoscientific and metaphysical basis for the whole profession (vertebral subluxations, Innate Intelligence, misuse of spinal manipulation, etc.). Likewise for acupuncture, where the claims are required to be backed up by good research. (There is plenty of disagreement about the quality of such research, and Barrett is far from alone in that matter.) We (and you especially) know that acupuncture is associated with many claims that are nonsense or not backed up by research. Barrett's actual practice is not as extreme as indicated by that old article. It is quite normal in medical and skeptical circles. He's just one of the most notable skeptics in that area.
Lest Barrett become a straw man diversion here, let's remember the subject is Quackwatch, not Barrett. He is the prime mover behind the website, but a whole host of others help in the endeavor. Most of the front page articles are written by him, with fact checking and research conducted by helpers, but even more material on the site is from other authors. The website is the largest database on such subjects on the internet, with a vast collection of articles, news reports, scientific research, government documents, and historical records, and as such it is often the only source for those references. When we reference Quackwatch for those types of sources, for example a Congressional report on quackery, the reference carries the same degree of reliability we would accord the Congressional record.
Of course Quackwatch should be used with discretion, and that's what we should do with all sources. That is a given with all our sources. No new rule or application of existing policies is required for a special case here. It is already covered by our V & RS policies. We should prefer better sources when available, and use attribution when necessary, but QW is often the only or best source available for many fringe subjects. It is often a notable, significant, controversial (among quacks), and highly respected opinion source, and should be used as such. We constantly use sources of far less quality without blinking, or with them being subjected to uninformed and deprecatory remarks in an ArbCom. Why? Because quacks' incomes aren't being threatened, and scammers aren't being named with backing from the FDA and FTC. Unlike many opinion articles we reference all the time, it provides its sources, and we can sometimes use them instead of, or in addition to, QW itself. When it is used as a source for a scientific article unavailable elsewhere, it is just as reliable as any scientific article, and for that type of use MEDRS would apply. Just use common sense in a case by case manner. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to John Vandenberg
I fully agree with you. The implication of the "finding" is that Quackwatch is always an inappropriate source, and that's very, very wrong. It can be used on a case by case basis, just like other sources. It is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal (websites are not "peer-reviewed"!), and thus scientific research would rate higher as a source, per MEDRS, for nitty gritty details of scientific matters, but can be used like any other source for matters of opinion related to those subjects. Like most of our other sources, it is a perfectly good source for certain purposes. In fact it is often a better source for articles related to fringe subjects, which alternative medicine subjects are by definition, where there is a dearth of scientific expression on the subject. Since scientific research isn't for opinions, you won't find scientific research that states a matter is nonsensical or quackery, because research doesn't deal with such matters. The same scientists will write such opinions, but they do it in other venues, such as articles and websites. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to other critics here
While I'm not surprised that believers in fringe POV would appear here with their attempts to smear Barrett and Quackwatch, please get your facts straight before making statements. I do appreciate that Geoff Plourde did recognize (in his "reponses") that his initial statement was way off base on a couple points. In fact most of his statement is quite inaccurate.
As I wrote elsewhere, I will even go so far as to point out a cardinal red flag of a fringe POV pusher - they attack Barrett and Quackwatch. Anyone who does that needs to be placed under observation, and a clue stick labelled "ban" held over them, ready for instant use if necessary. Attacking such reliable sources is a pretty obvious symptom that one's POV and ideologies are screwed up. Find anyone who is doing it, and you'll find such an editor....or someone who just doesn't have a clue, possibly because of ignorance of the issues regarding healthfraud, consumer fraud, and quackery. Please take this opportunity to understand the issues (by using Quackwatch) and become informed. That can only be done by studying both sides of an issue. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Backin72's response to John Nevard
Maybe you didn't read my comment above, but to trust a newspaper columnnist's editorializing based on one statement taken in isolation, without also looking at Barrett's actual practice is naive. Since his actual practice often deviates significantly from that one statement, it is obviously being misapplied and applied to broadly. The guy obviously has much more nuanced views than that! He obviously does follow along with the scientific evidence and when the evidence is strong enough, he has been known to change his position, which is the logical and proper thing to do. To top it off, his articles are reviewed by many experts in the field and thus go through a form of informal review process. He seeks advice and gets help when preparing articles, and if you find something outright inaccurate (not just a difference of opinion), then by all means email him and get it fixed.
The evidence for many of acupuncture's claims is far from a settled matter in the scientific community, and Barrett is one of many who are unconvinced by most of the studies - which happen to be of poor quality. There is no scientific consensus about acupuncture, so this is just a difference of opinion which exists in the scientific community. This is an ongoing process. As such it's also a content decision and the editors of the acupuncture articles are perfectly able to deal with it. The "double-standard" is the standard applied to all extraordinary claims. Unusual claims are subject to this standard rule: "the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded." Nothing new in that. If someone told you that one of the Moons of Pluto was made of cheese, you would likely adopt the same position as Barrett or any other person who possesses even a smidgin of critical thinking - you would consider it unworthy of investigation and would hold such claims to a much higher standard of evidence than other claims. There are many claims in alternative madicine, including some of them in acupuncture and chiropractic, that are unworthy of exploration by scientists. Let the ones making the claims provide their evidence. If they do so, it will be looked at, and if found worthy of consideration, THEN Barrett and others will certainly encourage investigation. It only makes common sense to say what Barrett said. His statement shouldn't be stretched too far, which is what you seem to be doing. That's certainly what Donna Ladd did in her article.
All this discussion about acupuncture would be fine for the acupuncture article's talk page, but it's not appropriate as the subject of an ArbCom or ArbCom decision. That is indeed a content matter. No one here has a right to deem Quackwatch or Barrett unfit as a RS because they share a common disagreement that exists in the scientific community. The next thing we'll be banning any source that has a POV at all. If Quackwatch stood on the opposite side of a fully uniform, existing scientific consensus, it would be another matter, but that is far from the case. All I'm hearing is the disgruntled complaints of believers in acupuncture, who are far from unbiased in this matter. You have a financial COI related to acupuncture, and Fred should have recused himself based on his preexisting bias against Barrett and for alternative medicine. I was tempted to point it out during the ArbCom, but was fearful of doing so. I had alread been the victim of my evidence being deleted and disallowed in the events leading up to the ArbCom, and was pretty much paralyzed and unable to effectively defend myself against the libels I encountered all the way through what often felt like a kangaroo court. For some reason, all our rules against personal attacks, BLP, etc. did not apply at that time. There was no due process, and no one jumped in and got critics to stick to the point. It was a free for all, with some of the worst perpetrators still editing here. Their lies were found to be just that, but nothing happened to them. The finding of fact had already been written before any evidence had been presented, and when the so-called evidence was shown to be without foundation, was it revised??? No, not at all. Instead ONE pitiful diff (the Clayton diff mentioned by Fred) that showed I had RESTORED (not ADDED, as claimed) an existing link (IOW a consensus of editors had found it worthy of existing) was used as evidence of my foul behavior. There was no finding of fact. It wasn't true, so I was judged using faulty evidence of something that isn't a crime at all. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Fred Bauder
Your statements aren't clear, since you have shown no wrongdoing, only that you don't like what you found. Are you claiming that Barrett is incorrect in his criticisms of the Clayton mail order diploma mill, one of several which the founder has established? Regarding your statement that you are more anti- than pro- alt med, your actions have spoken louder than your words. Even at the beginning of the ArbCom, I was aware of your biases. Whatever the case may be, you don't like Barrett or the POV at Quackwatch. Whatever. That's your right. Those who are anti-anti-quackery, are by definition for quackery, so please be more careful with your statements. Maybe that's not the case, but it could seem so. You really should have recused yourself, and now, with these comments of yours, you should do it now. You are a former lawyer and know that a judge with your POV would be disqualified in such a case. Claiming that this isn't a court of law (a claim I've heard before) doesn't free you from the obligation to provide a just forum for deciding cases here. Injustice mustn't be allowed. Recusing yourself isn't a dishonorable thing to do. In fact, not to do so would be dishonorable.
Regarding your citation from Quackwatch about "there is no alternative medicine." That is not Barrett, but George D. Lundberg, a physician, board-certified pathologist, and, since February 1999, editor of Medscape. For 17 years prior to joining Medscape Dr. Lundberg served as editor of the JAMA:
  • "There is no alternative medicine. There is only scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine supported by solid data or unproven medicine, for which scientific evidence is lacking. Whether a therapeutic practice is "Eastern" or "Western," is unconventional or mainstream, or involves mind-body techniques or molecular genetics is largely irrelevant except for historical purposes and cultural interest. We recognize that there are vastly different types of practitioners and proponents of the various forms of alternative medicine and conventional medicine, and that there are vast differences in the skills, capabilities, and beliefs of individuals within them and the nature of their actual practices. Moreover, the economic and political forces in these fields are large and increasingly complex and have the capability for being highly contentious. Nonetheless, as believers in science and evidence, we must focus on fundamental issues -- namely, the patient, the target disease or condition, the proposed or practiced treatment, and the need for convincing data on safety and therapeutic efficacy."[4]
His idea is echoed by Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist and author known for promoting the gene-centric view (in his book The Selfish Gene), coining of the term meme, and atheist activism:[2][3]
  • "There is no alternative medicine. There is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn't work."[5]
  • "Either it is true that a medicine works or it isn't. It cannot be false in the ordinary sense but true in some 'alternative' sense."[5]
You are welcome to disagree with all of them, but don't imply that Barrett is someone with an oddball belief. He is in very notable company.
As to your claim about him "blurring of the distinction between outright quackery and alternative procedures", he is very clear about the distinction. In fact the very citation you use makes it clear, almost as if you are quoting him! ("blurring distinctions"):
  • "To avoid confusion, "alternative" methods should be classified as genuine, experimental, or questionable. Genuine alternatives are comparable methods that have met science-based criteria for safety and effectiveness. Experimental alternatives are unproven but have a plausible rationale and are undergoing responsible investigation. The most noteworthy is use of a 10%-fat diet for treating coronary heart disease. Questionable alternatives are groundless and lack a scientifically plausible rationale. The archetype is homeopathy, which claims that "remedies" so dilute that they contain no active ingredient can exert powerful therapeutic effects. Some methods fit into more than one category, depending on the claims made for them. Blurring these distinctions enables promoters of quackery to argue that because some practices labeled "alternative" have merit, the rest deserve equal consideration and respect. Enough is known, however, to conclude that most questionable "alternatives" are worthless.[6]
  • "Unproven methods are not necessarily quackery. Those consistent with established scientific concepts may be considered experimental. Legitimate researchers and practitioners do not promote unproven procedures in the marketplace but engage in responsible, properly-designed studies. Methods not compatible with established scientific concepts should be classified as nonsensical or disproven rather than experimental. Methods that sound scientific but are nonsensical can also be classified as pseudoscientific."[7]
  • "Do you believe there are any valid "alternative" treatments?
    This question is unanswerable because it contains an invalid assumption. "Alternative" is a slogan often used for promotional purposes, not a definable set of methods. Methods should be classified into three groups: (1) those that work, (2) those that don't work, and (3) those we are not sure about. Most described as "alternative" fall into the second group. But the only meaningful way to evaluate methods is to examine them individually, which we do. We discuss this subject fully in our article "Be Wary of "Alternative" Health Methods."[12]
See also:
-- Fyslee (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Carcharoth
  • Thank you so much for your well-reasoned comments. Simply deleting the word "unreliable" would be fine. The source was not deemed unreliable at the time, and even the charge by some that I had misused the source was never proven.
  • Thanks for the information about Fred's status. I'll strike that comment right now.
  • The use of the word "partisan" is problematic, in that it indicates a negative attitude towards the site, IOW Wikipedia itself is expressing a POV based on a judgment of the POV of the site. That's none of our business. The site has a POV. Most sites do. Big deal. [begin sarcasm] Does that mean we are to label every single site with a POV as "partisan"? In fact, by not doing so, but doing it to Quackwatch, sends a very bad signal. How about labelling Joseph Mercola's and Gary Null's websites "partisan". Now they are all being branded by Wikipedia, and editors and readers get the impression that they are all bad. Believe me, they all have POV, and Quackwatch is the only one with a POV favorable to mainstream science! Either we deprecate all sources that express a POV, or we actually forbid their use. Then we can have a nice, tame, and very boring Wikipedia that fails to document the real world. [end sarcasm] Of course not. Our existing policies are good enough and we don't need special depracations from ArbCom. Quackwatch, like any other site, should be used sensibly and not blindly. No site is perfect.
  • Of course this would violate a principle we already have in our NPA policy:
  • "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." -- Fyslee (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That principle should (in a certain sense) also apply to Wikipedia's official statements about sources. Sure we all have our personal opinions, but let such remain personal POV. They might come up on talk pages, but articles and policies should be spared for such language. Save it for very problematic hate sites and such. If we are to have any official statements at all about how to use "sites with a clear POV" (don't use the word "partisan"), let's just advise the use of caution and common sense. Our fringe and weight guidelines already prefer we give more prominence to mainstream sources in matters of science and medicine, and Quackwatch is definitely against the fringe and for the mainstream. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on motions
  • First motion. This motion isn't necessary. Our existing policies cover this, and making a special case places Quackwatch in a bad light, while ignoring other commonly used partisan sources which hold the opposite POV (IOW pro-quackery and fringe POV). It is doubly troubling in that it cites a phrase from NPOV that is itself problematic and needs tweaking. It seems to require that sources used not only abide by Wikipedia's NPOV policy, but give equal time to truth and error. If a website or source takes sides in the issue (QW sides with scientific evidence, wherever it leads), then it is deprecated. That's just plain wrong. That phrasing needs tweaking, and it shouldn't be used in a motion here. We are still discussing the stance of where SPOV fits into things here. Right now there is a movement to make the SPOV a part of policy regarding the way scientific subjects are presented. We are actually moving towards deprecating fringe POV based on anecdotes used by scammers and flakes. Deprecating sources that hold the SPOV is counterproductive to making Wikipedia a reliable source and a respectable encyclopedia. -- Fyslee (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second motion. I support it ("...changed to "Sources used by Fyslee".") -- Fyslee (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to everyone
  • Please read in detail the section Quackwatch#Notability at the article. Read the references. Keep in mind that this is a fraction of the available evidence, since critical editors have done all they could to keep such favorable mentions out of the article. There are plenty more from mainstream sources. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References
  1. ^ Angell M, Kassirer JP (1998). "Alternative medicine--the risks of untested and unregulated remedies" (PDF). N. Engl. J. Med. 339 (12): 839–41. doi:10.1056/NEJM199809173391210. PMID 9738094. Retrieved 2007-12-28.
  2. ^ a b Skeptical Inquirer Magazine Names the Ten Outstanding Skeptics of the Century.
  3. ^ a b Signers of the statement "In Defence of Scientific Medicine" Signers of the statement "In Defence of Scientific Medicine", welcoming the founding of the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine. It is a long list of notable individuals, including five Nobel laureates, all of whom are thus signalling their critical attitudes towards alternative medicine.
  4. ^ Fontanarosa P.B., and Lundberg G.D. Alternative medicine meets science. JAMA. 1998; 280: 1618-1619.
  5. ^ a b Richard Dawkins Dawkins, Richard (2003). A Devil's Chaplain. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. {{cite book}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)
  6. ^ Stephen Barrett. Be Wary of "Alternative" Health Methods
  7. ^ Stephen Barrett Quackery: How Should It Be Defined?

Statement by DreamGuy (talk)

I would hope that ArbCom would look past the (understandably, I suppose, considering, but not very helpful) angry tone of the above and take steps to fix the very real problem. We've been discussing QuackWatch on the Workshop page of the Fringe Science workshop page, and we've pretty well established that it's nothing like an unreliable source. ArbCom typically doesn't rule out sources as unreliable just in general, but it's especially odd they'd do so on one that fits WP:RS so strongly, and it's mentioning as such is being used by civil POV-pushers to try to remove a well known, extremely well-regarded and important source critical of their beliefs in fringe topics. DreamGuy (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:Geoff Plourde's comment that "Medical school curriculum does not cover the core concepts of chiropractic, acupuncture, or other CAM techniques." -- of course it doesn't, because they are not considered real medicine by any accepted medical expert or authority. That's like trying to argue that no biologist can weigh in on how absurd the notion of Nessie or Bigfoot existing in the real world because university biology courses and DNA studies do not include dissection practice on cryptids. Medical studies have examined chiropractic, acupuncture and other techniques. The individual behind QuackWatch is aware of these studies. That's why he says what he says, not because he is ignorant and incapable of saying anything educated on the topic, but precisely because he is well versed on the fields from a medical and scientific viewpoint. It's absurd to try to use your own personal opinion to rule anyone who disagrees with you as a bad source and expect Wikipedia to just follow whatever you say. DreamGuy (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

This finding attempted to rule upon a content issue outside the Committee's remit. Although a necessary part of arbitration does relate to obvious calls such as the unreliability of citations to non-notable blogs, this was not that type of obvious call. The evidence upon which the Committee passed this finding was more emotional than factual (one party had been in a protracted lawsuit with the owner of the Quackwatch site) and regardless of what POV is at stake that is not a good basis for arbitration findings. I have no opinion about the suitability or unsuitability of Quackwatch for encyclopedic citations. This is a matter for the community to determine. DurovaCharge! 19:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Geoff Plourde

While I have a COI in this area, I believe that the finding regarding Quackwatch was accurate, but nonetheless procedurally wrong. Quackwatch is as heavily biased as any other blog site. The articles are written by an ex psychiatrist with absolutely no training in the areas he professes to be an expert in. Medical school curriculum does not cover the core concepts of chiropractic, acupuncture, or other CAM techniques. This website has no peer review system and considers all topics as pseudoscience. It is clearly the work of someone with a vendetta against anything that is not mainstream medicine. Unfortunately, I must agree with my worthy colleagues that the scope of this body does not include content, and therefore content rulings are moot. However I advise amending the finding to a suggestive finding stating that "Evidence has been presented that Quackwatch may be inadmissible as a source under policy." This is simply a statement of fact and not a content ruling, satisfying both the need to note the error of Quackwatch and remove the content intrusion. Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Shoemaker's Holiday
Review of the case page did not turn up evidence to support my position. However I believe the finding about Quackwatch was based on behavior and not content. In no way does the Committee rule that Quackwatch is bad, simply that Fyslee has used it as a partisan source. this is supported by cursory review of Quackwatch and its purpose. Geoff Plourde (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Fyslee
I must respectfully disagree with as regards the accuracy of Quackwatch. I present a statement by Ray Sahelian, MD [13] Dr. Sahelian is a currently practicing board certified family practitioner who in this statement points out the errors of Quackwatch.
Second Response to Fyslee
I am highly disturbed by your divisive statement, "As I wrote elsewhere, I will even go so far as to point out a cardinal red flag of a fringe POV pusher - they attack Barrett and Quackwatch. Anyone who does that needs to be placed under observation, and a clue stick labelled "ban" held over them, ready for instant use if necessary. Attacking such reliable sources is a pretty obvious symptom that one's POV and ideologies are screwed up." This stone age method of thinking is harmful to Wikipedia as it actively prevents dissent, and would grant de facto ownership of all alternative medicine articles to pro Barrett editors, which would be a serious violation of OWN. Fyslee, I honestly believe that Quackwatch is a crock of shit written by a retired shrink with an box of axes to grind. His blog site is worthless for all intents and purposes and poses a clear and present danger to advancement in medicine. Regardless, I agree that the purpose of this Committee is not to make content judgements which should be addressed in other fora, hopefully without your attitude as a rule.

However, in this case, I believe that the original decision was correct in light of the circumstances. The finding was about the usage of partisan sites by Fyslee, which is a policy matter. Quackwatch was cited as an example in support, an application of policy. Is Quackwatch partisan? Yes and this is clearly established by cursory review of Quackwatch itself. Did Fyslee try to use Quackwatch? This case and relevant logs would appear to say yes also. The finding is a logical result of this reasoning.

Regardless of the reasoning, there is a more significant test of whether this was a content ruling. Does the finding prohibit the usage of Quackwatch? Nowhere in this finding am I able to find any provision that specifically says that Quackwatch is unusable. Without such a provision, Quackwatch is still utilizable. While I may be speculating, this appears to be more about one user's discomfort at having his hand smacked for his conduct. I would therefore reject this motion, as the evidence clearly shows that this is not a content ruling. Geoff Plourde (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Enric Naval

ArbCom made a ruling on content, and a bad one at that. It's being discussed on the fringe science case [[14]]. My 2 cents:

Barret is a knowledgeable/notable source on health and nutrition issues, and in quackery. From his own bio:
a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, a CSICOP's Fellow, FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery in 1984. Honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association in 1986. Two years teaching health education at The Pennsylvania State University. 2001 Distinguished Service to Health Education Award from the American Association for Health Education. [15](not a literal quote)
but we can't use him as source because "he's engaged in advocacy"? No. (not to mention that there are not defined criteria to determine advocacy, so all sources showing a fringe belief in a negative light will inevitabily be accused of advocacy)

This finding is being used as a sledgehammer to kill references to a source that, as Shoemaker points out, is recommended by reliable sources on the relevant fields.

Statement by User:Martinphi

"As a result, the ACSH has been accused of being more of a public relations firm, and less of a neutral council on Science. " [16]

Well, maybe the site is reliable and maybe not. Looks like it might have some wise council sometimes. But that does not mean we should not prefer better sources when available, nor does it mean we do not attribute statements. If it weren't purportedly defending the mainstream, it would be considered a very unreliable source. Its "reliability" comes totally from its POV, since few here would for example think that the Parapsychological Association is an RS, although it is far more RS per policy. As it is, Quackwatch and similar sources should never be used unattributed, and I'm guessing that is the major point of contention in articles, as it has been in the past. I mean, read WP:RS. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 08:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by User:Backin72

There is some evidence that Barrett is biased against alternative medicine. Please note that this is not just another way of saying "he has a pro-science bias (chuckle, well, shouldn't we all)". I mean that he holds alt-med, which like conventional med ought to rise or fall based on evidence, to an overt double standard.

"I won't even look through that telescope"

For example, from a Village Voice article: "Barrett believes most alternative therapies simply should be disregarded without further research. "A lot of things don't need to be tested [because] they simply don't make any sense," he says, pointing specifically to homeopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture.

Homeopathy, I can understand; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence to date is far from extraordinary. But chiropractic and acupuncture? Whether or not vertebral subluxation theory or qi and meridians strike you as bullshit, the practices of spinal manipulation and acupuncture (inserting needles at particular sites) are the subject of mainstream research, and show some promise in the treatment of pain (and nausea, in the case of acupuncture), according to the Cochrane Collaboration, a resource for evidence-based medicine. Cochrane, unlike Quackwatch, meets WP:MEDRS and takes the stance that more research is appropriate and necessary in these fields.

When Barrett refuses even to acknowledge that things like chiro or acu, which are physical procedures with plausible mechanisms, should even be studied before being dismissed, he's out on a bit of a limb. Dare I say, he's something of an extremist.

Quackwatch is "occasionally informative"

From the same Village Voice article, regarding Barrett's anti-evidence-gathering stance:

"He seems to be putting down trying to be objective," says Peter Barry Chowka, a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine. "Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative," Chowka added. "But I personally think he's running against the tide of history. But that's his problem, not ours."

Exactly. Barrett not only lacks objectivity, he derides it.

Ultra-mainstream IOM held to double-standard by... not-too-mainstream Dr. Barrett

The Institute of Medicine, one of the American Academies of Science and certainly one of the most prestigious and reliable English-language sources on medicine, conducted a study on alternative medicine ca. 2003-2005. Barrett criticized the panel for doing what any other panel on any other subject convened by the IOM would do: including members who had professional affiliations, sometimes including grant money, related to the study's subject area (here, alt-med). This is disingenuous and a flagrant double standard, since a panel on radiology would obviously include some radiologists (some of whom were academics and therefor getting grant money), and so forth.

Such a double standard is plainly indicative of bias.

Conclusion

This doesn't mean that Barrett a/o Quackwatch can't be used as sources at all, but we should be mindful of their biases. Quackwatch does not even come close to meeting WP:RS, particularly WP:MEDRS. In my view, it should be used in situations where WP:PARITY applies, i.e. as a counter to fringe, vanity-type claims. When it comes to more mainstream alt-meds, like chiro and acu, we have far better sources meeting WP:MEDRS; there, Barrett has amply demonstrated his bias and should never be considered a reliable source. --Backin72 (n.b.) 08:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to John Nevard: Do you think Barrett is a reliable source on his own views?

I'm not too worried about whether the journalist quoted in the Village Voice is much of an RS, because he's just giving voice to a conclusion that follows from Barrett's own words. When Barrett denies the need even to gather evidence, or uses flagrant double standards, he's providing all the evidence of his own bias that any fair-minded person needs. --Backin72 (n.b.) 11:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:John Nevard

It reflects very well on the quality of Quackwatch that the best critical quote Backin72 could come up with was from a Mr. Peter Barry Chowka in that well-known bastion of evidence-based medicine the Village Voice, and it reflects very poorly on the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine that he helped squander their tax dollars.

One simply has to examine his website.[17] The latest article is on "An International Story That Helped to Define 2008"- the terrible defeat of Thabo Mbeki, AIDS hero, and his anti-HIV treatment policies, which biased pro-science Western science found to have killed at least 330,000.[18] It namedrops fellow AIDS hero David Rasnick. And it shows up the mainstream scientific establishment, represented by Oprah Winfrey.

So there you are. If you accept the judgement of important public figuress like Chowka, Quackwatch is simply an entertainment site. Nevard (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fred Bauder

The evidence for the unreliability of Quackwatch is its outright rejection of all forms of alternative medicine, "There is no alternative medicine". This results in a blurring of the distinction between outright quackery and alternative procedures such as acupuncture with have some support, see 'Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine"' by Stephen Barrett, M.D. This article, 'Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine"' is a good example of how self-published material by Stephen Barrett, M.D. is featured on the site. Fred Talk 13:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental principle which is being enforced by deprecating a blatantly partisan source such as Quackwatch is Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There is no reason to characterize such enforcement as a content decision, as, if verifiable, the information excluded from Quackwatch can be found in a reliable source. Take a look at 'Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine"' by Stephen Barrett, M.D. One of his points of argument is "Falun gong, which China banned several years ago, is a Qigong varient claimed to be "a powerful mechanism for healing, stress relief and health improvements." That brings up the argument that aspects of alternative medicine, particularly acupuncture, have cultish aspects, but does not do so in a scientific way, but as guilt by association. The quote, "which China banned several years ago" is a good example of the type of irrational argument one encounters on the site; China banned Wikipedia. Fred Talk 13:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The material from Quackwatch cited in the founding of fact in dispute, "Clayton College of Natural Health: Be Wary of the School and Its Graduates" by Stephen Barrett, M.D. is a good example of the sort of self-published material to be found on the site. Fred Talk 13:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My personal point of view is more anti than pro alternative medicine, but I have no strong feelings which would have required recusal. Fred Talk 02:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Crohnie

When this finding was made and the arbitration was closed, editors used this finding to go to many articles to remove all mentions of QuackWatch from articles. They actually diffed to this finding saying that the arbs stated the QW was an unreliable source. Now this brings the questions, if the arbitrators didn't want to make a decision on content, then why did they? I have also seen attacks to Fyslee with this motion attached to prove that what he added was against the policies made by that decision. I believe that this does need to be rewritten so that it says that arbs do not make content decisions. Editors that go and remove all references to QW where it is being used appropriately should be warned if a new decision is written that this site is WP:Reliable source which from my readings here and at another arb case is being stated. I also agree that if another ref is available that should be used but it doesn't mean that QW has to be erased at the same time. This motion, in a nutshell, is used as battering ram to remove this source in WP:Fringe articles all to often. It is also used to debunk any editor who has placed the dif into an article. So in closing, I hope the arbitrators will either rewrite the section for clarity or do a new case to clarify this situation. Just a side note about this, Fyslee esp. has had to defend himself on many ocassions do to an editor warning him about using partisan sites against arbs ruling, this I also find to be a big problem for this editor to edit articles without the tensions that this motion has caused. Thank you for listening. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment & Question: If Fred Bauder wrote the motions why did he not recuse when he obviously has a very strong POV about all of this? This affects not only the use of the source but it affects the editor to whom he voted against. I am sorry but I think this is wrong. Just my opinion but I feel this is too personal for this arb to be making motions like this. --CrohnieGalTalk 18:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion, Since Fred Bauder admits he wrote the finding and also admits he has a strong POV personally about it I suggest the whole thing should be erased. Since he is no longer an arbitrator and didn't recuse at the time, then the section he wrote should be cancelled by the arbitrators now sitting. I understand that he doesn't think he should have recused himself but it obvious from comments being made that he should have at the time. This can be fixed by removing the sections written by him that had no evidence to prove it. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:DGG

Everyone interested in this subject area has biases. Those of Quackwatch are declared, and the general view of the scientific and medical world is that overall they are sound, and based on evidence. To the extent the finding was written by Bauder, it represents his personal viewpoint, which is not sound in the view of most of those in the general subject field (or at least such is my own bias); he is entitled to it, and articles should take appropriate account of such fringe viewpoints, but it illustrates unmistakably why arb com should not be making such pronouncements. The decision that resulted from his view is harmful to the basic principle of NPOV and objectivity. No source can be used uncritically; the tradition Wikipedia dichotomy between reliable|unreliable is too crude to be helpful in many situations. The finding was both beyond he remit of arbcom, then and now, and in any case simply wrong. Not that arbcom should declare Qw legitimate. Its legitimacy is no concern of the committee. Its use in articles is to be determined,as with all sources, on a case-by-case basis. I suppose it would be correct & within its remit for arb com to confirm, as a general principle of editing behavior, that people should regard sources in a careful manner. DGG (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

  •  Clerk note: 2 things: 1. Fred Bauder was the original author of this finding, and 2. there were multiple sections that had the same content in the original proposed decision page, see this and its subsections. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 13:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side (i.e. non-clerk view): I think Fred meant this: Stephen Barrett's argument that China banned Falun Gong is irrational argument, as China also banned Wikipedia. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 14:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I did not agree with several aspects of the ruling at the time. The type of content that Quackwatch has gives it a slant and makes lean toward being a partisan source more than other medical resources, but is not an unreliable source and to characterize it as such is wrong. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title and text of the finding could have been better phrased and better explained, because Quackwatch can in some circumstances be used as a source. As I understand this request for clarification, it is largely asking for a ban on Quackwatch to be lifted. That is not possible because there was no such ban: It is not the job of this committee to determine whether sources are reliable. The substance of the finding stands in relation to the original case: Quackwatch, as a campaigning site, should be deprecated in favour of sites which do not have a particular agenda to promote. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree in part with Sam above; I think more has been read into that ruling than was warranted. There is an observation that Quackwatch tends to be partisan, and should not be a preferred or exclusive source, but not that it is not a reliable source as is generally understood. — Coren (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can and should revise the wording of this FoF. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest that we should revise the wording through issuing a clarification or correction, rather than changing the finding itself (which might have the effect of attempting to rewrite history). Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with Sam. We should not be changing past rulings themselves. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aye, that is what I meant. I would not be surprised if there is an appropriate FoF buried in the current wording, as there would be times when QuackWatch is an inappropriate source, however the current ruling implies that it is always an inappropriate source, which is wrong and needs to be corrected. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fred, China also banned Falun gong; could you clarify your point please? John Vandenberg (chat) 13:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deeming a source to be reliable or unreliable is almost always going to be a content decision and as such beyond our remit. However, as Sam says, the substance of the finding (that partisan sources should not be misused) stands; cf. this principle, for example. --bainer (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tentatively agree with several of the comments above, but could a clerk please advise the arbitrator who wrote the original decision of this thread, as I would like to get his input, if any. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted Fred, who drafted that decision. Ex-clerk, — Rlevse • Talk • 00:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I can see, the main contention comes from the wording of the header in the finding of fact: "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee". Suggest that the simplest change (if a new finding of fact is needed) is to drop the word "unreliable" to leave: "Use of sources by Fyslee". That takes the focus away from the reliability of the source, and focuses on the behaviour of Fyslee. The actual wording of the finding of fact still uses the word "partisan", which I think is reasonable, and the associated remedy (which passed 7-0) should still be fit for purpose: "Fyslee is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a NPOV. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits." That all seems fine, so I think that all that needs doing here is some way of noting that the header of the original finding of fact should either have "unreliable" removed, or that this word be replaced with "partisan". Carcharoth (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fyslee has called for Fred Bauder to recuse himself "now". This misses the points that Fred Bauder is no longer an arbitrator and hasn't been since December 2007. The issue of recusal at the time is long gone and the focus here should be on what to do now, not what could or should have happened. Carcharoth (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Responding to Shoemaker's Holiday's comment on the word "partisan", several other arbitrators have used this term. FloNight said "...gives it a slant and makes [it] lean toward being a partisan source more than other medical resources..."; Sam said "Quackwatch, as a campaigning site, should be deprecated in favour of sites which do not have a particular agenda to promote."; Coren has said "There is an observation that Quackwatch tends to be partisan..."; Jayvdb has said "there would be times when QuackWatch is an inappropriate source"; bainer says "the substance of the finding (that partisan sources should not be misused) stands". Nearly every arbitrator so far has commented on the need to take care with the use of material on Quackwatch because of the nature of the site. Such sites can change over time, but the basic nature of the site, its raison d'etre, doesn't seem to be disputed. Carcharoth (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

There are 17 active arbitrators, so 9 votes are a majority. 14:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

1) In the finding "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" (3.2) in the Barrett v. Rosenthal case, the following additional finding is added:

The use of Quackwatch as a source is not banned; however, all editors are reminded of the instruction in the policy page on Neutral point of view that they should "give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner", that Quackwatch is a site "whose purpose is to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct", and is therefore explicitly not giving a balanced presentation.
Support:
  1. Proposed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree that this is helpful statement as an companion to the the proposal that I added about Fyslee. I see no way around the Committee making some type of a determination about the nature of this source if we are going to make a remedy about his use of the source. But I still think that labeling it an unreliable source is wrong and we need to backtrack on this aspect of the case ruling. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Arbitrator Discussion of motion:
  • For me, a large part of the problem with the original Fof was the use of the term "unreliable source". FloNight♥♥♥ 16:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1.1) That the header of the finding "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" (3.2) in the Barrett v. Rosenthal case be changed to "Sources used by Fyslee".

Support
  1. Proposed. To supplement motion (1) --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Perfect. I was getting ready to add this exact wording. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 17:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion of motion:

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis 2

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


Statement by Martijn Hoekstra

Following discussion on WikiEN-l I would like to ask the Arbitration Committe to review the effective options we have to limit the impact of the disruptive behaviour of the individual behind JarlaxleArtemis (better known as Grawp). The measures we have used so far (as listed by soxred93: Huggle, ClueBot, Notices on IRC, Spam blacklist, Abuse filter (in the future), and as added by Christopher Grant, adminbots as Miza's) haven't been able to effectively stop disruption to a satisfactory level. His ISP, Verizon, has so far been unresponsive. Options that have been suggested are stronger attempts at contacting Verizon, preferably by people who have a clear connection to Wikipedia and/or the Wikimedia foundation. Another option discussed are various forms of placing large rangeblocks if Verizon remains unresponsive. It is clearly preferable if rangeblocking is not needed, but there are some voices that rangeblocks may be an option to make it known to Verizon that we are nearing our last resorts, and without their assistance to stop the abuse, we may have no other choise.

Therefore I would like to ask the arbitration committe to guide the discussion on the enforcement on the ban on Grawp, and on additional measures that can be taken.

Statement by JzG

The user is already banned and is unlikely to be anything else this side of the heat death of the universe. Anything else should be down to the community, and perhaps the office.

For the record, I think we definitely should contact Verizon and inform them that if they do not take action then we will have no option but to rangeblock them, I strongly suspect that the adverse PR which would attach to that would be sufficient even for them, but I guess it depends on which Verizon business unit we're dealing with and at what level. I had the devil's own job getting a major outage sorted, but our man in the States called the VP of Verizon global customer services on his cell (at his barbecue at home) and there was an engineer on site 15 minutes later. Maybe Jimbo can make the call if I get him cell number :-)

Anyway, it's not clear to me what change ArbCom can make here, irritating though this vandal undoubtedly is. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie

I mostly agree with Guy. On Wiki activity such as rangeblocks will be of limited use, he already recruits folks to do his dirty work on various messageboards and the like. Any action to be taken can be STARTED with rangeblocks at the EN-Wiki level, but probably either ArbCom or various OFFICE members will have to recommend to the Foundation that certain actions be taken at the Foundation level to minimize the disruption of this persistent troll. SirFozzie (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jéské Couriano

Didn't it mention on Jarlaxle's LTA page and at WP:BANNED that Jarlaxle was banned Wikimedia-wide before? In any case, I think this may have to go to the Foundation level or directly to his (apparently largely-clueless) ISP; Jarlaxle's been using SUL to impersonate and harass other users. I don't think a rangeblock will work too well; he's been using open proxies, as far as I am aware. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 23:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM) Is Verizon a member of the BBB in Jarlaxle's area? If they are, we can put pressure on the BBB to cut off Jarlaxle, as happened with Mmbabies. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 23:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

WP:DENY occasionally fails as a solution strategy. This is one of those times. Recommend ArbCom consider a formal complaint to the user's ISP, since the behavior obviously exceeds the boundaries of any normal terms of service. Persistent disruption has become a drain on volunteer morale. If ArbCom determines such action is outside its remit, then a formal recommendation of similar action to WMF would be in order. Respectfully, DurovaCharge! 21:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The Arbitration Committee is aware of this problem. Obviously, in terms of traditional arbitration or community remedies, we are maxed out here—JarlaxleArtemis a/k/a Grawp is clearly as banned as a user can be. There has been some internal discussion of possible steps that could be taken beyond that, which I am sure will continue, and we will report to the community if at any point we have anything useful to add. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confirming that ArbCom is aware of the problem and we have discussed whether ArbCom should be involved in taking further steps, and if not us, who if anyone should. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is, at this time, very little that ArbCom could be doing directly in this matter. We are, nonetheless, examining ways ArbCom or the Foundation could help alleviate the problem. — Coren (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing more to add, but noting here that I've been following the wiki-en-l mailing list discussion and participating in the internal ArbCom discussions. Some co-ordinated approach is needed for these types of problems, and hopefully something will emerge from the discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline - Grawp's a bit outside the scope of a finding at arbitration, don't you think? Such action as exists will happen whether or not a formal RFAR existed, and a formal RFAR would add nothing to it. A reasonable request, but Grawp is the kind of user that further RFAR's are not going to add anything. Discussion will happen regardless. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline - The Arbitration Committee is aware of the issues, as is the WMF. It is outside this committee's remit to contact service providers. It's clear that the community has easily reached a conclusion that Grawp and his socks are not welcome here, rendering any RFAR moot. Risker (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: TTN

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


Statement by Collectonian

I am requesting that the original restrictions against TTN be extended. Since they have lifted, he has returned to many of the behaviors that caused his initial restrictions, including wholescale merging of character lists to their main articles, characters to character lists, etc. He is doing all of these without any previous discussion and without performing any actual merging just redirects. He is doing no tagging before so issues may be addressed.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] And he is completely ignoring/disregarding any on-doing merge discussions that may be happening on that page and falsely claiming he has "merged" the content rather than just redirected. While he is generally not edit warring after they are reverted, he has done some.[34][35] He is doing this silently, and ignoring all requests that he instead start discussions before doing such inappropriate merging as they almost always go against multiple-project consensus and a general overall consensus that fictional series can have a single character list.[36] If his edits are reverted, rather than start proper merge discussions, he takes the articles to AfD.[37][38] This seems to very much be the same sort of disruptive behavior that caused so much trouble before, and is causing hassles for multiple projects attempting to clean up articles. As such, I think the original restrictions need to be extended until TTN can learn to actually "work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question" rather than just clearing out dozens upon dozens of articles because he personally thinks "there is nothing to merge" despite consensus saying otherwise and thinks there is some deadline for cleaning up articles.

Addition: One of the most recent issues relates to List of D.N.Angel characters. This list already was tagged and had an active discussion to merge all of the character articles to the list. TTN came in, delinked the articles and redirected the individual articles to list, without performing a single actual edit nor really merging a single bit of content (despite his claim that he did by saying so in his edit summary).[39] When this was undone in favor of allowing them to be properly merged, he immediately took all of the articles to AfD. This is NOT following the normal nor proper process for dealing with fictional articles. There was already consensus to merge the articles, an AfD was neither nor appropriate. However, TTN wanted them gone NOW rather than allowing editors to do the merges properly, so he attempted to have them delete. And considering his earlier actions with randomly redirecting character lists to their main articles (wiping out almost all the information, then doing a mediocre "merge" of a few sentences to try to get around it)[40][41], it seems highly likely he would have revisited this list in another month and wiped it out completely.

I was one of TTNs supporters in earlier actions, but it seems he is getting worse and worse, acting purely on his own views rather than actual established consensus, guidelines, and project efforts. Regardless of the reason why, in the last ArbCom, TTN WAS restricted from this behavior. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Guest9999
That is only accurate for a few of the minor characters. For others, much information was lost in the merges, such as Daiki Niwa's section. Also, proper merging should include going ahead and cleaning up stuff. If there wasn't some apparent rush, I would be really merging this PROPERLY by also adding the missing sources and doing fact checks, as was done with my many merges at List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters (currently being prepped for FLC). The lack of references is pretty irrelevant in this case, as he did not just leave out OR, but everything possibly salvageable from the original articles, including plot summary. And in the case of his redirecting character lists, tons of information was lost for no good reason at all. There is a right way and a wrong way to do this stuff, and TTN's methods are wrongs. He isn't even doing just one series, but doing some 10-20 per day, without discussion, falsely claiming he merged stuff when he did nothing but do a redirect, and leaving others to go back and clean up behind him. Yet some people act as if that's fine, yet will throw a right hissy fit over people doing "drive by tagging" because they didn't do any "real work." And though TTN has already been involved in multiple ArbComs, AN/Is, RfCs etc, he is still being allowed to continue being disruptive, despite requests and attempts to discuss alternative and better ways of dealing with the problem. He is showing no desire at all to actually work in a cooperative manner, only do what he wants the rest of the editing community be damned. Yet, others do similar things and its "hey, you stop that now because it isn't in line with consensus nor being a community." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by A Nobody

The most recent Administrators' noticeboard thread concerning the user in question is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive500#User:_TTN_blanking_pages_after_discussion_says_KEEP. These mass nominations are attracting negative attention as seen at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 48#Deletion_spree. TTN has also removed a caution/warning from an admin who brought this up earlier and saying he is merely trying to get articles merged and redirected given his recent Articles for deletion (AfD) record is just not true. Notice that only about 25% of his AfDs were outright deleted (it is not called Articles for Redirecting or Articles for Merging), which suggests a remarkably poor "success" rate. AfD is not for merging and redirecting, but he apparently does not mind misusing it for that purpose as he admits here. These AfDs are becoming increasingly frivolous with sources that the nominator can and should have easily found himself (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sissy and Ada, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egon Olsen, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Quist). Consider, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prinny. The article contains out of universe information easily found from Google searches (see Prinny#Cultural_impact) and yet at AfD it gets the same copy and paste bot-like nomination that once again does not accurately apply to all the articles being nominated. It is as if categories of fiction are just having their contents discriminately nominated even though some of the articles vary considerably in terms of potential and actual notability and verifiability. Even those who frequently argue to delete are starting to get annoyed with this (see [42]). Also, not sure where this was archived to, but there is a revealing diff there (this one), which shows TTN’s disregard for the community. It is telling when even admins who do close his nominations as delete are getting tired of the nominations as seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mainframe (C.O.P.S.) (yes, I know that nomination was actually by a different editor, but the wording is identical to part of the wording used in the copy and paste TTN nominations). From just today, see also [43] and [44] for additional quarrelling with other editors. In fact, he is driving people away from the project. So, the user is unwilling to discuss with admins who caution him (see [45]), is bringing articles to AfD that he admittedly wants merged or redirected but does not want to discuss with the actual article creators and writers on the articles' talk pages as they might argue against what he wants per [46], and has nominated well over 200 articles for deletion (see [47]), a minority of which were actually outright deleted (I gave a more detailed breakdown of his edits at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sgeureka#Oppose to contrast him with another editor). How many times does he have to be sanctioned before he alters his way of going about things? You know, to be fair, maybe there is something problematic about those of us with obvious biases participating in these discussions. Maybe they need new blood as it were. This is a big project and I think he can and should try his hand at something else like article creation or sourcing for a change. Show the community that you are not only about deleting things, but that you too can build content as well. Randomran and others with whom I have disagreed in AfDs have all made efforts to improve articles as well, as I tried to show at Sgeureka's RfA, and in some cases even offered the occasional “keep” argument in discussions. I cannot say to them, “You never argue to keep” or “You never add sources”, because they can prove that they have done these things. I urge TTN for his and the community’s sake to make a voluntary good faith effort to work on something other than deletions and you will at least make it that much harder for those to criticize you, because otherwise this copy and paste approach to nominations is very bot-like and thus does not truly consider the individual merits of the articles under discussion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Masem's 06:44 comment
Actually, he does focus on a large majority of articles from a single work of fiction at one time. Generally, he seems to pick one category or two a day and nominates a block of articles rapidly with the same word for word nomination regardless of the variance of the various characters or weapons notability (I have even seen some where characters are labeled weapons, weapons characters, etc.). Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Sgeureka's pie chart
So, that pie chart essentially shows that the bulk of TTN's nominations have been way off mark. As it is articles for deletion an overwhelming and decisive majority of the articles have been closed as something other than outright deletion. Thus, that chart effectively demonstrates that AfD is being used to circumvent regular merge discussions, as TTN has himself acknowledged in order to avoid discussions in which the regular editors of the article would be more likely to oppose (put simply, to avoid the will of those who actually write the articles) and to force merges and redirects by using the wrong venue, i.e. a clear and undeniable abuse of process. The chart additionally shows the shear volume in nominations that in effect overwhelm projects' efforts to rescue articles, which given as we don't have a deadline, there is no pressing urgency to delete these articles and halt all work on them right now forcing those who are willing to improve them to start over rather than building from a foundation. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on another statement
Trying to circumvent discussing with the actual authors of the article is disrepectful to those who volunteered their time to contribute to our project and ignores the stances of those who are more apt to have specific knowledge of that particular work of fiction. If the community is extremely tired of anything, it is these indiscriminate mass nominations that circumvent normal merge discussion procedures. That is why editors of varying inclusion opinions keep starting these threads. The community is fatigued by TTN's efforts to just remove rather than improve articles concerning topics he is unwilling to improve himself. Given the tremendous disputes over and failure to yet compromise on a fiction guideline, trying to enforce one editors' belief of what it should be on everyone else is unacceptable. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to SirFozzie's supplemental comment
TTN is actually NOT working within any policy as we do not yet have any actual consensus on fictional notability. Rather, he is tendentiously copy and pasting the same deletion nomination for articles of sometimes wildly varying notability and with varying quality of sources in the article or found in simple Google searches. He is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point by flooding Articles for deletion with an overwhelming number of nominations while admittedly attempting to get around the input of those who might argue to keep the articles in question. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Colonel Warden

I was picking up a few of the pieces of TTN's trail of destruction today. Aside from the aftermath of the unnecessary AFDs, I noticed that he took a big bite out of the Ringworld article in passing. This was done without any discussion and seems quite unhelpful since Ringworld is multi-award winning novel which certainly merits a good article here and the information included highly structured stats. I have reverted but might easily have missed this. As for Collectonian's complaints above, I have little direct knowledge of those articles but, if she considers TTN's treatment unacceptably destructive and dismissive then this is telling as I usually find Collectionian to be quite a hard-line deletionist. So, please restrain User:TTN again, as requested. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by not impartial and not-currently-but-formerly-partly-involved Casliber

I echo the above, and view Collectonian's position as highly significant and worth noting. I feel that TTN is unable to edit in a collaborative manner which is incompatible with the writing of an encyclopedia. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by New Age Retro Hippie

I find it worrisome with regard to his use of the AfD process - he's got roughly 43 active requests for deletion, and he's participated in roughly only two or three of the discussions in any of those. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And note, I'm not calling for probation or the b&, merely that TTN either needs to cut down on AfDs or increase his participation in them. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TTN

I try work as collaboratively as possible with people, but there is a point where it is not possible to directly deal with fans or projects that feel the need to take two years to take care of small problems. I use a mix of merge discussions/strait merging, redirects, and AfDs to get things done, and of course some people will have a problem with it. Collectonian acts like I absolutely never deal with people, though I recently asked the video game project for input twice (here and here), and I do start merge discussions, though they are overshadowed by the number of articles that do not need to be merged at all. Other complaints are just issues of personal preference in dealing with bad articles (whether to tag first, only use talk page discussions for these kinds of articles, ect), so this is the kind of thing that belongs in a RFC/U or some other similar forum of discussion.

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

I believe this is being handled effectively by administrators and there's no need to sanction TTN at this point in time. The major problem we've had with TTN in the past is the edit warring to keep his merges/redirects in place. I still see the odd reversion, but nothing like what we were seeing 12 months ago. We encourage our editors to be bold and this is just what TTN is doing, if he steps back and starts edit warring again going against the bold, revert, discuss cycle then perhaps we can look again, but that's not happening at the minute. I do have some concerns about the way TTN merges his edits, and this led to a warning for not attributing edits properly (something which I will block for if he does it again, although a quick scan of his contribs shows he's attributing correctly at the moment), but that is a simple administrative issue which can be dealt with as such. To sum up - there's no need for the Arbitration Committee to step in here. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Goodraise

(Edit conflict) As far as I understand it, TTN has previously been restricted for edit warring, which nobody here seems to accuse him of. - He has been accused of going "against multiple-project consensus and a general overall consensus that fictional series can have a single character list". Note, that this quote is not covered by the link provided. He has been accused of misusing AfD for merging. The diff provided, where he supposedly admitted this behavior, only shows him talking about redirects, not about merging. Are people actually expecting of him, to start a merge discussion, after a redirect of his has been reverted? What would he be supposed to start the discussion with? Perhaps, "I suggest article A be merged into article B, but since I can't find anything in those articles worth merging, someone else will have to perform the merger." Then, he has been accused of having "disregard for the community", as is supposedly evident by yet another misread diff. - TTN has picked himself a dirty job. And he is doing that job in an admirably civil way. A hothead like myself probably couldn't do it. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

I have sympathy for both viewpoints here, but I think TTN is stuck between a rock and a hard place. There are a lot of articles, mostly fiction, that are candidates for either deletion, a merge or redirection, but how to deal with them? The obvious answer is to be bold and redirect/merge them, but often (and probably because it's TTN to an extent) this will get reverted, leading to the edit-warring problems we had before, which at least TTN has generally avoided this time. Adding merge tags is generally fruitless because many of these articles are so obscure and ignored that no reasonable discussion will ensue. And so we go to AfD, where - yes - many end up with results of Merge, but at least they've then got the weight of an AfD behind that merge. I know this is another layer of bureaucracy, but possibly some sort of parallel discussion page such as Articles for Merging (AfM?) is an idea which would cope with this. Black Kite 22:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Randomran

I think we need to be very specific about the problem here.

First what this is not.

  1. TTN's previous ArbCom case was not for merging or redirecting articles. It was for edit warring.
  2. There are a lot of people who do not like that User:TTN is being too WP:BOLD. There is absolutely nothing wrong with merging, cleaning up, even redirecting entire articles WP:BOLDly.
  3. If anyone, including User:TTN, makes a WP:BOLD edit that you disagree with, the correct action is to revert it.
  4. If anyone, including User:TTN, is unhappy with being reverted... the correct action is to discuss it. (This failure to do so is what led to his last punishment, which I agree with.)
  5. If the discussion results in no consensus, then solicit feedback from more editors.
  6. I haven't seen evidence that User:TTN is misusing the WP:BRD process.

But that said, I can see why this case keeps on coming back to ArbCom in good faith. (Although I suspect that a few people really just want to be rid of someone they disagree with, regardless of whether or not he follows our behavioral rules.) I don't think TTN is breaking any policies in any clear way (being incivil, failing to assume good faith, edit warring...) But I think that we need ArbCom to answer a few specific questions about more gray-area behavior:

  1. If your effort to redirect an article results in a revert, is it appropriate to solicit further discussion at an AFD?
  2. Is it disruptive to boldly redirect an article for issues that haven't been described through either a discussion or a tag?
  3. Is it misleading to summarize your edit as a "merge", when you've been highly selective in the content you've merged? (See: Wikipedia:Smerge#S)
  4. Is there such a thing as WP:GAMEing the WP:BRD process through sheer volume? If so, what is an appropriate level of activity, keeping in mind that some Wikipedians are highly active, and others only check in once a week, or less.
  5. Does the collective amount of these behaviors amount to WP:GAMEing the system? ("See #9: Borderlining".)

I would be uncomfortable penalizing TTN for any of these behaviors, because I think these are questions that nobody honestly knows the answer to. (At least, I sure as hell don't know the answer. Take #1 as an example: the vast majority of the AFDs that TTN puts together results in deletion or a redirect -- so it's not like he's particularly out of step with the community. But then again, it's not called "articles for redirection". It's not called "articles for discussion". It's articles for "deletion". Is an AFD an appropriate way to settle a disputed redirect? I think you'd get a different answer from everyone here.)

However... I do think we should find out if any of these behaviors are considered disruptive, so we can know once and for all where to draw the line. Once we have a clear line, there will be no excuse for crossing it. Vice versa, if these behaviors are acceptable, we also need to know. I'm a little tired of how ArbCom is being used here, when I don't think that other forms of dispute resolution have been tried. ArbCom should be used based on the quality of the behavior, not a judgment on the person. I don't see TTN doing anything remotely as bad as what he did around a year ago, and the fact that he was here a year ago should not turn every disagreement with him into a request for ArbCom to step in.

  • Additional comment: Something to keep in mind: TTN has no real power. AFAIK, he's not even an admin. He cannot delete content: only start an AFD. At most, he can redirect, which can easily be reverted if he's truly alone. Yeah, TTN has a lot of patience and time to go after lots of articles at a time. But he is not responsible for their deletion/redirection/merging any more than the article itself can be owned by a single editor. That responsibility belongs to the consensus of editors. It is literally impossible for TTN to singlehandedly override consensus. It is literally impossible for TTN to singlehandedly delete entire topics. Collaboration is too ingrained in WP's processes.

    Despite being unclear as to what TTN is actually doing wrong, I think there are legitimate questions in this RFAR. (I tried to pick them out above.) But many of the honest questions are being overshadowed by hyperbole. While I hope ArbCom disregards the hyperbole, I hope they don't disregard the honest questions that people have. I think we ALL want to know where to draw the line. It will prevent us from wasting ArbCom's time unless there's a real problem, and it will also show everyone (including TTN) how to behave.

    One more thing. The fact that most of us don't know where to draw the line would make it unfair to enforce some invisible behavioral policy upon TTN before it's been made clear. I think we should WP:AGF and presume that TTN has learned his lesson from the last arbcom case. We should assume that the new TTN wants to abide by our behavioral policies. (Indeed, he's stopped edit warring.) And if TTN is actually doing anything wrong (which many people don't think he is -- honestly and in good faith), then we should assume that the problem here is a lack of clarity in our policy, not a lack of cooperation. Randomran (talk) 03:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to DGG Moved from DGG's section per rules against threaded discussion. Daniel (talk)
Sorry to barge in, but I figured I could since you mentioned me by name. It sounds to me like your biggest issue is the quantity (or maybe the speed?) of the AFDs put forth by TTN. If so, then I don't really disagree with your overall message. Just that we need a clear statement about what a disruptive level of activity is. I would even be comfortable adding something to WP:GAME and WP:POINT for future reference, and would fight hard to make sure that rule stays there. Randomran (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to John Vandenberg

  • I'm very pessimistic about exploring how the restriction affected content. First off, this is a behavioral issue, not a content issue. Second off, since I expect a lot of people to take the bait on the question... I also expect a lot of people saying "things were so much better with the restriction! We need to stop TTN from deleting good content," while another group says "things were so much worse! TTN is helpful in that he flags a lot of bad content". In other words, you'll get an entirely partisan answer. Finally, TTN can't delete content. He can only nominate it, or boldly redirect it. Are we going to treat him as though he WP:OWNs the changes, when others added their analysis at AFDs, merge discussions, and assisted with redirects and merges? That seems like a double standard. Randomran (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peregrine Fisher

Wikipedia is not cleaned up in a day, because it's a lot of work, and people's feelings will get hurt. TTN seems to have taken the job on by himself, and he's forced to cut corners and ignore other peoples feelings. TTN needs to learn to play nice and work with other people. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to a few of the TTN supporters here. I don't disagree that TTN enforces our policies and guidelines. This case reminds of a few other arbcom/ANI situations. It's the question of whether someone who is a "net gain" is allowed to, basically, be mean to other editors. It seems the answer to this is sometimes "yes". I personally believe the answer should be "no". I don't know if arbcom can answer this question in some general way, but it would be cool if they could/did. Let's say TTN correctly cleaned up 10,000 articles, and alienated 100 editors (I think those numbers are within a factor of the real numbers). Is that OK? If TTN alienated just DGG, that would be too much for me. 10,000 articles to 10 IPs? Maybe that's OK, I don't know. I think a positive result of this situation would be that TTN, under penalty of small blocks, must work collaboratively with others. A big block just makes him take time off, then go into maximum attack mode (within whatever restrictions are on him), as far as I can tell. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Motion 1: Fait accomplie, so yes. Motion 2: TTN has not edit warred, but this is the community discussion, possibly with teeth. Community discussion does not fix fait accompli, so here we are. Motion 3: We're here again, that should indicate that the reminder didn't work. Motion 4: This isn't really about AfD. TTN is like a bot who targets fiction articles. He redirects as many as he can, the puts the rest up for AfD. Do this enough, and again you have a fait accompli. Motion 5: The community doesn't agree enough to do this for TTN, at least not yet. TTN needs to be told to wait on the community, slow though we may be. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DGG

Let me word this as a reply to Randomran, A occasional or closely targeted bold redirect without discussion is not disruptive--I've done this myself from time to time, even on characters when I see an obviously unsupportable article and a good target. [48] Dozens of them in close succession for multiple article groups are disruptive. It is not wrong to try for a redirect as a compromise, and if not obtained, to try what you really wanted, which is deletion. It is wrong to do so routinely for multiple article groups. Nominating 5 articles in one day for deletion is reasonable. Systematically nominating 5 items or more a day, every day, is not. TTN has a valid point--the articles on these subjects are horrific--anyone coming here will soon see this. But the way to improve them is through discussion and cooperative work, not rushing "madly off in all directions" Stephen Leacock, disregarding all opposition. To nominate articles for lacking references to show notability is useful.[49] To refuse to check first is not so good. (as in every AfD he's placed) To reject references when offered is not good. (multiple afds) To reject even awards as showing it is probably even worse [50]. It shows a determination to be rid of the articles regardless of how. To nominate for deletion or redirection or destructive merging in very large quantities without cooperative work results in random articles being handled in incompatible ways, which is not helpful--especially when done regardless of the importance of the underlying subject [51]. It results in decision by trying to wear out everyone else, and hope to be the last person standing. In desperation, to reduce our areas of interaction, I came on line today intending to propose to TTN that I would simply abandon defense of some classes of articles (games, and children's video), if he would cease trying for the deletion or quasi-deletion of som other classes (classic fiction & works based on classic fiction). Some people, even looking from outside at WP, have called me "patient," [52], (7 paragraphs from the bottom); for my discussions see my talk page archive on fiction. But he is driving me away from the topic to the extent that I am some days reluctant to start looking at the latest AfDs, or even at WP at all.

I have repeatedly online and offline offered to work with TTN on these articles, as I work with others--and when i do , I give very orthodox advice. [53]. I've worked cooperatively in a friendly & constructive way with people I consider rather extreme deletionists, such as Orange Mike. The only people who have ever not been willing to are a few trolls and SPAs--and TTN. I have specifically offered many times to help with proper merges, [54] (for example) since it is true that sometimes appropriate redirects or merges that he proposes are unreasonably rejected, and I've been ignored--possibly because I offer to help only for the appropriate merges. [55] WP:BRD only works if all three parts are followed--otherwise its bullying or obstruction. There are three things to which a wiki is extremely susceptible: zealots, refusal to discuss, and gaming. See the unanimous WP:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2#Principles arb com view on this DGG (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Masem
nobody but TTN does this quantity, and does it without discussion. The quantity is the problem. "Any sin if persisted in will become heinous" Samuel Johnson. I'm referring to refusal to discuss as the "sin," not deletionism) DGG (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Caissa's DeathAngel

It is tough to say whether TTN is actually breaking the rules here. Certainly, individually his actions are in agreement with WP:BRD. However, these are not isolated incidents, these are a huge number of incidents and I believe that collectively they may well be gaming the WP:BRD. Articles for Deletion is not to my mind a place for redirects and mergers. While merge and redirect may be an outcome of the process, no article should ever be submitted there with that intention in mind. I also believe that discussion should occur before an article is sent to AFD. It is very easy for us as editors to occasionally let something lie a little too long, and we may need a bit of prodding (no pun intended) to remind ourselves to sort an article which may be a candidate for deletion. But that discussion should to me come before the AFD. Attempting a redirect straight away I do not object to. I do however object to the article being sent to AFD immediately upon the redirect being reverted, especially when the revert edit summary requests a discussion. That discussion may lead to the merge/redirect being vindicated, but at least the discussion will have happened. To me, the best place for this discussion is on the article's talk page, or that in to which it is suggested it be merged. Not AFD, which is not in any way a discussion page.

Does the fact that so many cases of this amount to justification for extending sanctions on TTN? I would feel more comfortable if that were the case, but that is no what this is about and it would be a gross violation of policies to let my personal feelings affect how this judgement should be made. Perhaps the best solution is requesting that TTN cool off with his use of WP:BOLD and perhaps engage in discussion a bit more readily before sending articles to AFD rather than letting the AFD be the discussion. Whether there is any basis for this to be enforced or an official judgement however I leave to those better versed in such interpretations than I to decide however. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by nifboy

In my mind the discussion of many similar articles has, for articles TTN is not involved in, gone something like this:

Editor1: {{plot}} Editor2: {{sofixit}} 2 years go by without any substantial change. Maybe a small-scale edit war but nothing substantial unless Editor1 is dedicated enough to basically rewrite the article from scratch, which can only really be done for high profile articles (hence the success of the Final Fantasy Project, for which step 1 was basically "Merge together a whole bunch of middling characters").

I don't think this is tenable in the long term. So when TTN comes along as asks, "Guys, can we talk about these articles now?" I generally approve. Even if the article hasn't been tagged before, getting the issue on the table and making sure people know about it right away is preferable to letting it stagnate before doing anything about it. Nifboy (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie

Agreed with Ryan, I'd hope ArbCom quickly rejects this "Clarification" as yet another attempt to sanction TTN for behaviour that complies with Wikipedia policies. SirFozzie (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental Statement by SirFozzie Re: Coren's motions

I would suggest that the other side be just as wrist slapped. See the ANI section on Pixelface yet again edit-warring to try to take WP:PLOT out of the realms of Wikipedia policy (so they can keep all the cruft articles that get generated). Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pixelface_and_WP:NOT.23PLOT for the recent discussion and and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pixelface for the result. This is a two way street, and to be quite frank, TTN is the one acting more within policy on this one. SirFozzie (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KojiDude

FWIW, I beleive the statements posted by A Nobody and Collectonian bring up very real problems, (with evidence to boot, something many arguments here lack [including mine, ironicly]) which need to be considered. It seems to me that TTN has realized very little about the issues his rapid nominations and editting patterns raise, and it would be a net positive to have the sanction restored. Dude needs to chillax.--Koji† 03:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Protonk (talk)

As I am a poor writer, I will begin this with a caveat. While this issue itself appears perennially before Arbcomm without apparent differentiation from request to request, I agree that each request can be made in good faith. Like all content/conduct disputes, no one here has the benefit of speaking from stoic impartiality. The folks calling for TTN to be restricted are probably genuinely interested in stopping conflicts and encouraging dialogue. They are probably also interested in being rid of TTN. The folks (like me) calling for this to be dismissed are also genuinely interested in working in the 'pedia harmoniously. We are also interested in protecting folks like TTN from being censured, restricted or blocked. Both of our camps' concerns (where they are direct or proxies) are legitimate. TTN isn't the white knight simply because 90% of fiction articles are 'bunk'. Nor is he the bad guy simply because he proceeds aggressively and methodically.

Having equivocated, I'll try to move to the point. This motion should be rejected as it stems from a vague admonition in E&C2 ("The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question"), is largely unchanged from previous rejected motions, is (as Randomran points out) unrelated to the disputed issue in E&C2, and hinges upon what is a thorny community issue.

  • Previously rejected motions were argued before the committee with the same collection of information and basically the same motivation. Upon the expiry of TTN's restriction, he moved immediately into the prior area of dispute and began editing specifically within the guidelines set by the case. As he (and others) has said multiple times, the use of AfD and placement of redirects is the only venue allotted him to clean up or remove articles on fictional works. Unless we present some clear reasoning why this request is different from all the others we find ourselves in a position where the committee is being used as a standing threat against an editor proceeding along their normal editing path. The result is a chilling effect against editors who wish to clean up articles on fictional subjects. Either something novel should be addressed here or the motion should be rejected.
  • The impetus for E&C2 and the reason for restriction were the same. TTN was edit warring to maintain articles in his preferred state. If we want to ask for community action on his actions which are manifestly different from edit warring, we should be filing a new RFAR. If we think that the community cannot answer the questions his behavior poses, it might be time to do so. But we can't just keep using the result of E&C2 as an albatross around TTN's neck. Unless the suspect behavior is the same, the remedy should be different.
  • Finally, and most importantly, this problem isn't a user conduct issue. Or it isn't solely a user conduct issue. TTN is still doing this because he has the patience and the motivation to do so--not because of some unique malevolence or mania. The community is close to answering the fictional notability question (see WP:FICT), in the middle of answering the 'spinout' question (see the WP:N RfC) and nowhere near answering the merger/deletion/redirect question (in other words, answering the question of what the appropriate fora for these discussions are). Until those questions are answered and some process exists to discuss mergers centrally and enforceably within or without AfD, we cannot use the ARB as a blunt instrument to prevent those merger discussions from occurring.

TTN has a pretty impressive record at AfD of nominated articles eventually being deleted, redirected or merged. He's not doing it to prove a point. He's not tilting at windmills. If we don't like the outcome of his discussions or don't like the volume of them, that's tough. So long as we don't see deletion nominations rejected by the community or some recurrence of past behavior, we should not continue to bring these requests here.

An update with some comments

Ok, this request seems to be settling on two things:

  • Fait accompli: E&C 2 contained another provision that discussion is not to be overwhelmed by editing rate. If TTN is in violation, this is the likely problem. However, I want to caution the committee against interpreting this to mean discussion moves at the same rate in all venues at all times, nor should they treat discussions as a convoy where the pace is determined by the party wishing to proceed the slowest. More specifically: AfD discussions are centralized, semi-formal and predictable where talk page merger discussions are free form, local and relatively open ended. The expected speed that a talk page merger discussion would proceed at is not the expected speed that an AfD would proceed at. Consequently the rate at which new discussions can be opened or closed is different. 3-5 or even 8-10 AfDs a day is not an unheard of pace nor is it fast enough to presume that TTN is choosing the pace in order to disrupt opposition.
  • Out of process mergers: This is the second major 'charge' against TTN that appears to be materializing. To me, it is less compelling than the first. The community is currently at a point where policy (WP:DEL and WP:AFD) does not match with practice. The policy says that merger discussions are to be remanded to talk pages and not discussed at AfD. This plainly ignores practice--AfDs result in redirects and mergers all the time (fiction AfDs especially because they have a logical parent article). We should assume (this won't be hard to do) that TTN has a good faith belief that every article he nominates should be deleted. If we (the community of people that read the AfDs and comment) say "merge" or "redirect" that doesn't somehow void the AfD itself. Likewise the fact that every fiction article has a logical parent isn't grounds to force editors to engage in a merge discussion perfunctorily just in order to go ahead with an AfD. ArbCom stepping in and enforcing this will do just that. Protonk (talk) 08:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MuZemike

I do not see what I would call any significant signs of edit warring as a result of TTN's extreme usage of the BRD process that would constitute any restrictions in terms of this RFAR case. If users wish to nail TTN for mass-AFDing articles or for abusing the BRD process to the point of gaming the system, then use the dispute resolution process as intended, just as the WP:BEFORE process should be used as intended prior to nominating articles for deletion. Hence, I believe this to be another attempt at forum-shopping with ArbCom until the desired effect is achieved.

However, (huge caveat not present in my previous statement in the last request for clarification) even I find it a trifle annoying when I traverse through the day's AFDs and see the same types of articles nominated with the same reasons for and against deletion and with the same users going after each other like in some sort of a dog fighting ring. If users wish to nail TTN for that (along with the merge/redirect issues), it seems that starting at RFC/U (as boldly recommended by a very conscientious editor here) would make more sense and then work from there. I am afraid, however, that the community's patience especially those returning to this RFAR case is wearing thin; I don't know if the community is willing to wade through the lengthy process anymore. Hence, I think, in the near future and especially with the new arbitrators coming in, there will be a lot of friction between the Wikipedia community in general and the ArbCom to get troubling issues resolved. MuZemike (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sceptre

Yawn. Of course, it just wouldn't be RFAR without people screaming for E&C modifications to get rid of TTN... every other week. Sceptre (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

I have to agree with others that TTN is following the same process than anyone can for approaching merges of content, and he is pretty spot-on in identify articles that are inappropriate per guidelines, including the in-progress FICT that has been developed across a wide range of editors. If this was anyone else but TTN, people would simply blink and move on, since these fall into the bounds of suggested methods of editing. As long as it's understood that a "merge" result from AFD is completely acceptable from discussion, and (as been pointed out before to TTN, which it looks like he's following) the merge is noted in the merge target per GFDL, it's hard to see what TTN is trying to do as requiring any action above and beyond what admins can do. --MASEM 04:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to DGG's 06:01 comment

If TTN was focusing on a large majority of articles from a single work of fiction at one time, as to invoke the fait acomopli approach that he was warned about before, then yes. But from the checking I've seen, he does maybe a few articles from different works, or when there is a block, he will put a multiarticle AFD togther. (I don't think this is 100% perfect, but this is from spot-checking). Both of these help to make sure that the articles that should be kept will be caught by those that want them to be without overloading them. The other thing seems to be that TTN does monitor those article he deletes, which is much better overall than "drive-by" editing Given that the general barrier to deletion/merging of an article seems to be much higher than the creation, "rapid tagging of articles for AFD" does not seem to disrupt WP save for those whose areas of fiction of interest are being merged. --MASEM 06:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nsk92

Basically I agree with everything Collectonian said. Agressive mass redirects without discussion on articles where there is an active and still largely unresolved controversy about notability are clearly disruptive and it looks like TTN's behaviour is getting worse. It appears that TTN has not learned the lessons from the previous arbcom sanctions. Extending and expanding those sanctions would seem appropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few general extra comments. Some editors here suggested that an RfC or a WP:AN discussion or individual administrator intervention may be more appropriate courses of action here than an arbcom action. I don't think that is correct. In view of the massive number of articles affected by TTN's actions, this is not a problem that can be easily dealt with by individual administrators (and, in fact, a coordinated approach is preferable). Given how divisive the fiction notability wars are, it is rather unlikely that a WP:AN discussion would produce any conclusive result and to some extent the same is true about an RfC (which may still be useful, but would take quite a long time whereas the disruption caused by TTN's continued actions is considerable and ongoing). It does seem to me exactly like a case where expanding arbcom's previous sanctions is the right and most efficient remedy, at least in the interim. It is true that the previous arbcom sanctions on TTN were concerned with edit warring, but their intent was clearly to prevent disruption and since as prectice shows they were not sufficient, it is appropriate to expand those sanctions. User:A Nobody raises some valid points and examples above. It does look like many of TTN's AfD nominations are done fairly indicriminantly, with something close to a templated nomination text and with no real attempt to find sources first and to see if an article is salvageable. This type of behaviour is contrary to WP:DEL's intent and, when done on a massive scale, is disruptive. I should say that personally I am fairly indifferent to the issue of notability of fiction articles and the related notability wars; but I do want them to be resolved in some way since these notability wars destabilize WP:N and other notability guidelines. To the extent that I do have a position on the issue of fiction articles, it is probably fairly close to that of TTN. But I think the kind of WP:BATTLE unilateral tactics TTN deploys are inappropriate and disruptive and some more constructive approach aimed towards establishing consensus on underlying issues is necessary. Waging a one-user all-out war against fiction articles on Wikipedia is not the answer. Nsk92 (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nihonjoe

I think TTN means well. I don't think there is any malicious intent in what he is doing. However, his methods tend to be very disruptive and don't lend themselves to achieving a useful end result. As many others have stated here (and elsewhere), it's not what TTN is doing, it's how he's doing it. I think that if he made a more concerted effort to work with the community he is so intent on "reforming" he would find there is already an effort underway to make all the improvements he seems to want. Granted, they aren't moving as fast as he seems to want them to, but he needs to understand that there are only so many people who can do the work, and flooding them with additional work in the form of all the AfDs and other issues he piles on only makes them have less time to do the actual cleanup work already on their plates. While there may be members of WP:ANIME who may think they want TTN gone, I think what they really want is for TTN to work with them rather than rumbling over the top of them. If TTN shows that he can and will actually do this, rather continuing on his merry way—damn the torpedoes—when whatever restrictions are placed on him expire, then I think there can be a solution to this issue which will be good for everyone involved. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Y|yukichigai

As Kirill pointed out, the fait accompli principle from E&C2 covers this situation. This is a perfectly rational request for clarification and/or amendment, because it looks like TTN is attempting to accomplish his goals (once again) by way of fait accompli.

I'm not going to say TTN is wrong in wanting to merge some of this content. I'm not even going to say he's wrong in declaring some of it completely unfit for Wikipedia. I will say he's not right about all of it. More importantly though, he's going about it completely wrong, proceeding on a delete/merge/redirect binge with no regard to the community or even existing merge efforts.

Yes, he isn't edit warring currently, but I'd argue it's only minimally reduced the, shall we say, "pissed off" effect his edits generate. Much of the community does not welcome his contributions or even presence, and strongly enough to complain to administrators and the arbcom semi-regularly. That sounds like reason enough to examine a re-extension of his editing restrictions. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 08:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by sgeureka

I have high respect for the work of Collectonian and TTN, and while TTN is doing a lot of good work by being bold, it will occasionally backfire when other good and sincere editors like Collectonian stand up to deal with the cleanup issue in a different manner (usually with the same end result - the unimprovable bad standalone articles will be gone). Nothing that a reminder of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:There is no deadline can't solve (this applies to both parties), so no arbcom involvement is necessary. – sgeureka t•c 11:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics for User:Jayvdb (John Vandenberg)
File:TTN AfD results September through December 2008.JPG
TTN's AfD results Sept-Dec 2008

Following User:Jayvdb's request, I reviewed all of TTN's AfD noms since the end of his arbcom restriction in September 2008. You can see the proportional results of his ~550 AfDs in the graphic on the right (no guarantee for absolute correctness, and group nominations were still only counted once). I won't offer interpretations of these statistics, although I'd call attention to his does-this-deserve-an-article sensor (as opposed to the widely-held view that AfD is only for deletion). TTN still boldly merges and redirects, but now usually starts discussion (AfD or merge proposal) if he gets reverted.

In comparison, TTN initiated only 40-50 AfDs during his then-1.5-years wiki career before his arbcom restriction in early 2008 (with varying results), and he merged/redirected mostly boldly and edit-warred to keep redirects in place at that time. It's impossible to analyse other effects of the arbcom restriction on TTN's edit behavior, since he did not edit (much) during the restriction after the vagueness of the arbcom restriction had resulted in several AN/I and RFAR threads about his edits (I'd have done the same thing in his position). I will not provide specific examples either way, as e.g. 50 diffs of piss-poor decisions on TTN's part (which undoubtly exist) ignore the sheer volume of his area of work (thousands and thousands of affected articles) where he was spot-on. – sgeureka t•c 17:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(replies)

  • Is that 550 AfDs, or 550 articles listed at AfD? - ~550 AfDs including maybe a dozen group noms (TTN rarely group-nominates articles these days, as they backfire so often as seen at e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ring Mao, which was snow-kept and later deleted when individually listed)
  • why so many - I can only guess, but there may be no other option for TTN. Fan IPs can (and often do) revert any bold merger/redirect of popular yet nn articles, TTN can't revert them per his former arbcom restriction, and AfD is the only community-sanctioned way to confirm that the articles shouldn't (or should) exist.
  • Any chance of a cummulative line or bar chart of TTN AfDs? - What do you want to see exactly?
  • The number of merge outcomes is also a worry, as our procedure for merge is Wikipedia:MERGE#How_to_merge_pages - There is no wiki process like Wikipedia:Articles for redirection when an editor feels there is nothing to merge, e.g. when the whole article consists of WP:UNDUE WP:PLOT mixed with WP:OR and is already summarized in a parent list (my guess is that at least 80% of all individual fiction subarticles suffer from this).
  • Also helpful would be stats and graphs of AfDs in this topical area that were not raised by TTN. - Based on the history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional characters during TTN's restriction, there seemed to be ~40 character AfDs a month that weren't initiated by TTN, and I guess there were and are an additional ~15 AfDs for episodes, fiction lists or other fictional elements per month. Let me be clear that these AfD results are in total ignorance of performed mergers. I rarely initiate fiction AfDs but have still successfully merged/redirected/prodded ~2000 bad fiction articles in the last 12 months (maybe 50% without discussion), but then again, my chosen focus are abandoned bad fiction articles.

– sgeureka t•c 14:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sephiroth BCR

As people have previously noted, TTN was originally brought before ArbCom due to his edit warring, none of which is apparent here. What this report is ultimately about is TTN being impatient in attempting to subvert the existing venues for merging the articles of articles that fail our notability guideline when the Anime and manga WikiProject has a very effective cleanup task force that has a proven track record of successfully merging articles without loss of content or the mess of repeated AfDs. In several recent AfDs (see [56], [57], [58], [59]), he attempted to move around a merge discussion that was already in motion here. Whether he believes that there is "no content to merge" or not, he has no reason to take matters into his own hands when editors of the anime and manga project were fully capable of handling the situation and ensuring that the information was merged properly (and the merge discussion is in support of a merge too!). I realize that TTN may be cynical of any such efforts due to long experience of fictional walled gardens in which such merge discussions never produced any substantial change, but it has been repeatably pointed out to TTN (see [60], [61], [62]) that the cleanup task force for the anime and manga project is capable of performing such merges and that his intended goal will be fulfilled in any case. Now, I respect TTN's work. I believe that he does a lot of good for the project, but he needs to show the necessary discretion in realizing where his efforts can best be focused. If anything, I would ask him to respect the existing processes, and leave the job for them rather than going through everything with a chainsaw. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 12:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MacGyverMagic

Finding the diffs to back all this up will take a while. Please be patient.
  1. As User:MuZemike has said above, I have considered opening an RFC on this editor's behavior. While I can see merit in the idea that a lot of these articles need merging (I even defended a recent merge of his), I find that the way he goes about achieving his intended goal is disruptive.
  2. TTN has nominated articles for deletion where a redirect or merge was undone even though the merge discussion was still ongoing with no concensus (and even though the redirect/merge could have been reinstated). The particular case I remember was split 2-2 between support and oppose on the merge. This seems to indicate that he wants immediate solutions.
  3. Another indication of his immediatism is the sheer amount of deletion nominations he makes in a day. It makes it impossible for interested parties to improve all the affected articles in time because they're given too much work at once.
  4. In a previous arbcom ruling which had as one of the supported principles: "Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits." TTN was restricted in that debate but has again started in the behavior that that RfArb found to be disruptive.
  5. There is also no indication that he checks if the article is verifiable, rather than verified per WP:BEFORE before nominating an article for deletion. In his nominations he says that the subject is not independently notable from the main topic, which supports the idea that the articles does not warrant its own entry, but he never suggests or considers merging the articles he's nominating (in whole or in part). Just because something isn't independently notable, doesn't mean it's unverifiable or unencyclopedic and shouldn't be covered at all.
  6. Furthermore, there are basic disagreements on what constitutes reliable sources when people make attempts to improve articles TTN nominates (contrary to what he says, you only need multiple sources to indicate notability, for verifiability only one suffices) Whether a source is reliable is something to discuss too if it is contentious and shouldn't be decided by a single editor.


In short: I believe this editor should be restricted from making mass nominations on AFD and only make merges/redirects after the extend of the merges in question have been thouroughly discussed (and editors have been given sufficient time to address any issues). - Mgm|(talk) 13:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheFarix

The issue with TNN's recent actions is that he is refraining form the consensus building process because, as he already stated above, it is too slow and sometimes result in outcomes he disagrees with because of "fandom". While he and his supporters are citing WP:BRD to justify his actions, one must remember that WP:BRD is meant to initiate the consensus building process. Building a consensus is one of the fundamental cornerstones in editorial decision-making. Instead, TNN has is using WP:BRD to bypass this consensus building process altogether. --Farix (Talk) 14:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kung Fu Man

I'm going to say up front this is pointless. TTN does do a lot of mass deletion and blah blah blah, but at the same time, so do many other editors, myself included. Yes, he can be a stubborn jackass and push things to an extreme when he feels something should be a certain way. Then again, we all can. I've butted heads with him on more than one occasion, but I've also seen him actively question himself if his standards were too high and back down when it was shown editors were working on an article.

In the cases of these merges and redirects he's getting the hammer for, I'll be blunt: almost every one (there are exceptions of course) I've seen has been an article with an extreme narrow scope where a merge or redirect would be a better idea than a full article, because notable or not enough information doesn't readily exists to make a full fledged encyclopedic article despite all the jumping up and down over how notability must exist because one brief mention is found. If that was enough for an encyclopedic subject we'd see an Ash McGowen article singing my praises; thankfully it isn't and common sense needs to apply, in that there is a lot of cleaning needing to be done on Wikipedia.

TTN should definitely cool his jets more, but other editors should too, and realize what discussions are worth having. Encyclopedic content is not being lost by a merge, nor by a removal of content than on the surface appears to be unsourced original research. I think if you want to enforce anything, push for editors to not go to him when they feel an article should be removed and instead take care of it themselves and get the blame good or bad.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gazimoff

I have nemtioned this at at a Request for Clarification, both in one I initiated shortly after TTN's editing restriction came to an end here, and in one I commented in about a month later here. In both cases, the request for clarification was dismissed despite several concerns raised.

To clarify the point, for those who seem to miss it through my verbose discussion of the argument previously:

  • My concern is not regarding the edits as individual actions, but the large quantity of edits in a short space of time that presents a fait accompli.

By bombarding editors with a large quantity of redirects or AfDs, you reduce their ability to react meaningfully to each individual one. If there was a single AfD on a specialist topic at a given time, you would expect a deep and meaningful discussion along with some work to improve sourcing and other requirements. Once this is scaled up to 50 AfDs, the editing resource is stretched so thinly that it can't possibly meet the demands of every discussion happening.

My final concern is Arbcom's reluctance to grasp the nettle and deal with the issue one way or another. Either grant TTN carte blanche to perform contentious edits as heavily as he can manage, or call time on his actions and rein him. Without a clear message either way, I can assure the members of Arbcom that another Request for Clarification will be raised by another well-meaning yet concerned editor within another three month period. Gazimoff 15:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PeaceNT

Wikipedia is a collaborative project; collaborative being the operative word. Though it would be unreasonable to require everything be discussed in advance, editors should not constantly force their way in the face of loud crticism from the community. It is true criticism doesn't automatically mean what TTN does is wrong, but it suggests TTN needs to use feedback and improve their manners. Only when TTN knows how to work with others should we deem a restriction on him unnecessary.

These days TTN is starting a myriad AfDs - too many that he himself would not be able to comment on. This is hardly a good method of discussion, not to mention the enormous pressure put on editors working on a rescue, and the likely damage on legitimate content because AFD commentors may mistake those "merge" nominations for normal "delete" nominations. We have a very heavy workload at AfD already. That Wikipedia doesn't have an "Articles for merge" page is not an excuse. Wikipedia has a process for merge: starting proposals on talk pages. Everyday editors all over the project are patiently following this merge process without much trouble. People do not flood AFD with merge nominations like TTN does.

It should be noted that TTN's comment on this very page suggests that he won't discuss with "fans" or projects who he knows will disagree with him. This is wrong. The more potentially disagreeable an action is, the more important it is to discuss. TTN was restricted by arbcom not because of what he wanted to do, but how he did it, and now after the restriction period it seems he is repeating the old patterns. --PeaceNT (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stifle

TTN should be congratulated, not sanctioned. Sure, he's ruffling feathers, but that's bound to happen with the area he's involved in. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ThuranX

I have seen a number of threads on TTN on AN/I in the past years. Now he's conforming to the restrictions placedon him by ArbCom and the community, and still those who won't really improve things can't stop gunning for him. I am constantly frustrated by the number of editors who see Wikipedia as a cruft farm, and expand things here based on their love for a character or notion, bloating articles with nonsense about episode 17, season 9, scene 4, line 36 or whatever. When editors who work hard to make more and more articles look comprehensive without looking childish fold things together ,or insist on some rigorous standards of writing, not unlike a term or research paper, too much of this community rebels, screaming bloody murder instead of looking at is as real editing. I support TTN in this, as I do in almost all his efforts, and think this is a colossal waste of ArbCom time. ThuranX (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to White Cat (Apologies for the long delay between when he posted the relevant part and my reply.) You point to Simpsons and Doctor Who as examples of shows which deserve sub-articles. I hate to break it to you, but SO DOES TTN. I have seen him regularly point to the FA class Simpsons articles as models of what should happen for a sub-article, and how to make one he'll support. I recognize that his quote about the weaker/stronger pecking order sounds bad, but it reads to me as 'Once people see how I cleaned up the crappiest, they'll listen more and focus on the bigger ones more acutely.' I don 't think TTN expects, or intends, to ever try to collapse an A, GA, or FA quality episode/character/sub-article into the show's main one. I do think that we do not need 300+ Pokemon/Digimon/Go-Bots articles. A lot of your argument is based in inclusionist/expansionist thinking, and not in the facts of this particular matter. ThuranX (talk) 09:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jtrainor

While individually some of these merges may have merit, the fact that a) many are being done very quickly, b) many of them are redirects instead of actual merges and c) TTN ignores discussion about them means that collectively, they are quite disruptive. Jtrainor (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: If TTN is attempting to use the AFD process to circumvent merge discussions, this is a textbook abuse of process. Jtrainor (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kww

Another week, another unsupportable complaint to Arbcom about TTN. I repeat my normal request: reject this RFAR, and then make it clear that bringing this back to Arbcom again will result in blocks. This has gotten beyond ridiculous.—Kww(talk) 22:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Addendum: One recurrent theme that comes up is that using AFD for merge discussions is somehow an abuse of process. This is patently ridiculous. The only way to actually achieve a merge is to discuss it in a forum that isn't dominated by fans of the topic. The three prime authors of "Pikachu's left nostril" are never going to agree to merge it into a superordinate topic. Moving the discussion to the AFD gets a wider set of eyes on it, and in no way reduces the ability of the authors to participate: it only reduces their ability to dominate the discussion.—Kww(talk) 21:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Coren's proposals: These are moderate enough that I won't jump up and down screaming, but it still smacks of finding TTN's behaviour objectionable while not noting the larger problem: 80% of TTN's AFDs are resulting in deletions or mergers, and there is still a group screaming for his head. TTN is receiving stronger feedback that his AFDs are appropriate than in the other direction. People continuously note his sense of appropriateness in detecting articles which should not exist as standalone entities, and support his decisions a large percentage of the time. There needs to be a strong message to the people attacking him that the community is extremely tired of this, and fatigued by the constant efforts to drag him to Arbcom in an effort to preserve bad articles. It's unbalanced to "remind" TTN of his need to listen, and not "remind" his opponents of their need to abide by notability guidelines and AFD results.—Kww(talk) 22:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:White Cat

Okay... As an involved party on both E&C rfars... and as an involved party on 3 other rfars (which are relevant as far as I care)...

user:TTN (and several others) has been mass removing articles for over a year now. Whether TTN is meaning well or not is besides the point. What he is doing is harming the site. This is a serious problem and is not a content dispute. The disagreement isn't over the phrasing of a certain piece of text. Instead it is over weather or not an ENTIRE TOPIC belongs to the site or not. This mass removal is a trend not based on policy or consensus.

Detailed coverage on fiction related topics such as articles on episodes and characters are not banned from Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. In addition at no point had there been any conclusive discussion in weather or not such articles should go. There is no policy or consensus basis for TTN's mass action.


In current practice very popular shows such as The Simpsons or Doctor Who enjoy the liberty of having detailed sub articles on them. Less popular shows such as works of fiction particularly older shows and shows from countries that are not native English speakers (like anime) are being mass removed under the guise of notability. Some of these articles are on wikipedias most visited articles. For example the Japanese anime Naruto is generally in the top ten of the most visited articles and yet we do not consider any of the shows episodes notable enough to have an article. If that is our metric for notability then it is seriously flawed and needs a complete overhaul.

This is because in TTN's words:


This behavior prevents articles from developing. Development of an article is a long and painful path and it takes many years for an article to develop from being a stub to a featured article. In the time period it takes for an article to develop small communities are also formed within our community such as show-specific wikiprojects. These small communities work together and write articles in great speed and it no longer takes years for an article to become featured. Doctor Who wikiproject is such a "small community" that develops articles with great speed. TTN isn't willing to give articles a mere two years to mature which is not only preventing article development but also the development of "small communities" that would create. This creates an causality dilemma.

In addition to all that in the past some users have used this trend to cause various sorts of disruption including but not limited to trolling, vandalism, and harassment. For example User:Jack Merridew, a user convicted of harassment and sockpuppetry, had been making edits just like TTN which had lead to the circumstances arbcom is familiar with.

Arbcom to date has not made a very serious attempt to resolve this dispute so far and I'd ask arbcom to perhaps shoot Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 3 instead of amending a past case. (no offense intended)

-- Cat chi? 22:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe arbcom should sanction TTN to write a few featured articles on fiction. :) -- Cat chi? 17:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Recommendation to arbcom

I think arbcom is missing the underlying point:

  • Yes, TTN no longer revert wars like crazy and instead uses consensus gathering methods. This is certainly better than senseless revert wars on hundreds of pages. However there is little difference from what TTN is doing now and was doing before aside from the methodology.
  • The point of AFD is intended to improve the site. AfD does not exist as a means to game/overwhelm the system to force a deletion. Arbcom should not encourage this kind of use of AFD as it compromises the credibility of AFD itself. People will end up paying no attention to AFD consensus if AFD deteriorates into being a meaningless plot device.
  • The credibility of the nominations in question is disputed because the system was completely overwhelmed to the hundreds of nominations and was not able to properly address individual issues in the articles. Votestacking may be an issue in at least some of the nominations.
  • What TTN is doing demotivates everyone working on fiction related topics. No one not even people who are sympathetic with TTNs approach wants to handle the heat.
  • Measures currently proposed by arbcom will contribute to the problem, not solve it. Arbcom should strongly discourage mass action of any kind. Any mass action can and will be reverted by someone opposing it. Policy allows this in the absence of a consensus that supports the said mass action. This was why E&C 1 and 2 came about. I strongly urge arbcom not to make the same mistake yet again.

I think arbcom should:

  • Prohibit TTN and everybody else from using unauthorized bots or scripts such as AWB to nominate, merge, delete, redirectify, revert any of the articles in the topic range until said users get a bot approval which will of course require a solid consensus to be reached on the matter itself. Simple vandalism and uncontroversial cleanup is of course is exempt.
    • Running unauthorized bots itself is prohibited behavior but use of automated tools for nominations is generally overlooked for obvious reasons. The system however does not expect to see hundreds of nominations.
  • Require TTN to experience the article development process of two articles. That is two articles maturing from a stub to featured. One of these articles should be for a non-fiction related topic and another for a fiction related topic. I see no evidence of TTN getting involved in an actual article writing process to date.

-- Cat chi? 09:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

sgeureka's statistics may be inconclusive

In the past votestacking suspicions were brought to arbcom but no action was taken on it (WP:RFAR/E&C2/Evidence#Common editing behaviour of some users (Meatpuppetry)). Three examples were randomly picked back then even though there were vast number of others available due to time constraints.

The statistical analysis by sgeureka is raw and an additional statistical analysis of the people voting in each of the AFDs filed by TTN is needed. We need to see if the same people were voting "delete" all the time and how much their votes influenced the discussions.

An RFCU may be needed in the aftermath. Abusive use of sockpuppetry was done for much less.

-- Cat chi? 09:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Guest9999

The particular incident that seems to have started this whole thing off again involved TTN ignoring an active merge discussion (Talk:List of D.N.Angel characters#Merging character pages) and redirecting pages, then taking them to AfD after being reverted. However on further examination it is apparent that when TTN undertook these actions the merge discussion had been under way for almost two months and had not recieved any comments for approximately one month. I think it is fair to say that a discussion with no comments in a month cannot be considered to be active by Wikipedia standards. Looking at the initial three weeks or so of the discussion all five users who took part supported merging the pages. During the near two months the discussion was open - one month of which it lay idle - any of the users who were involved in the discussion could have merged the articles - likely without opposition - but none did. After TTN redirected the articles any interested editor could then have completed the merges but instead, the editors (who had all supported merging) decided instead to revert the redirects and revive an arbitration case. If anything this incident shows why TTN chooses to use - for the most part - AfD discussions rather than pursue merge discussions and other such measures. A process that after two months has yielded five comments and zero improvement to the encyclopaedia is not one that works well. AfD might not be designed for article merges but it is - in theory - a discussion based attempt at identifing consensus. The simple fact that TTN is able to nominate the number of articles he does every day shows the scale of the issue at hand; there are thousands of articles like them in the encyclopaedia and judging from the recent discussions he has started there appears to be a consensus to merge a large proportion of these. Having a page as a redirect for a while in no way prevents information from later being merged - be it the next day or a month later. Having hundreds of individual articles which can never meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria not only encourages more similar articles to be created but impedes the implementation of a high-quality, encyclopaedic treatment of the topic (such as those found at Characters of Carnivàle and Characters of Final Fantasy VIII). What TTN does must be very repetitive and tedious (likely a major reason why far more editors do not carry out similar actions), I do not think there is any doubt that he thinks he is doing the "right thing" for the project and would not be doing so otherwise. If anyone is truly at fault here it is the community for our collective failure to define an inclusion standard for fiction or develop an effective process for implementing any standard over the thousands of articles which as free standing works have little chance of improvement to a state where they meet the standard of content and quality required by all Wikipedia articles. Guest9999 (talk) 09:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary of "what started it" is incorrect, as is your presumption that the discussion was old or stale. Yes, it was clear to merge, but that doesn't mean merging will happen instantly, nor that it should be done without REALLY merging. The discussion ended a month ago, but hello, there are major holidays at this time of year and there is no WP:DEADLINE for doing the merges. The page needed a reformat first, and there are only a handful of us in the anime project working on doing this many merges PROPERLY. The fact is, yes, the individual characters were unnotable and merging was a go. TTN didn't need to do anything at all here, but he did. TTN also completely redirected a valid character list to the main article claiming the character list wasn't necessary either. The anime project IS working at dealing with those many bad articles and I'm not going to disagree on your last statement because I obviously don't think they are necessary either. However, simply redirecting wholescale dozens of character articles AND character lists without discussion, consensus, and proper merging is not a valid way of dealing with them. If TTN is too lazy or too busy to actually merge the articles he claims to be merging and to help fix up the target lists, he shouldn't be sending dozens of them to the projects to deal with and should let those projects deal with them on the schedule they can comfortably work with. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair in this instance all the articles to be merged are completely unsourced and most of them consist of only a description of the character. Given that the main - equally unsourced - list article already included a description of each character the amount of information to actually be merged from each article seems minimal. As an example your merge of Rio Hikari ([63]) didn't actually add any information from the individual character article it only involved rephrasing information already in the list article and including new information not found in either (note this is no way a criticism of the merge only a comment on the form it took). A similar pattern seems to be emerging for the other articles being merged. The discussion shows a consensus to merge the topic areas, with no sourced information from the individual articles and a brief character summary already present in the list article redirecting the pages seems reasonable and in no way prevents any information from being merged at a later date. As you say there is no deadline for merging but in the meantime isn't a redirect to a brief summary better than a poor article that will never meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, bogged down in original research and unnecessary plot detail? Especially if the article contributes little to nothing extra by way of sourced, encyclopaedia information over what is present in the list. Wikipedia will never be "complete" and all articles are - to a greater or lesser extent - a work in progress, I think the only disagreement is in how to manage the information that will eventually be retained. Using TTN's method a little information can be lost - at least in the short term - but the remaining "good" information becomes far less obscured by unsuitable content that is was always going to be removed at some point. The balance of article creation vs. information presentation has been skewed regarding fiction to such an extent that it is likely that a large proportion of Wikipedia's articles on fictional topics do not represent a standard - either in content or presentation - which reflects the consensus of the community. TTN's methods are clearly not perfect but during this whole lengthy saga neither "side" has shown any hint of a willingness to compromise and we are left with this situation. There is clearly a need for a visible process via which the community can consider fictional topics as a whole in a timely manner in order to determine how information pertaining to the topic should be presented and there is clearly a need to give interested editors the time to enact any consensus which is established. As it is we currently have one process which is likely to attract little attention and can proceed for months with no improvements and little impetus even when there is a clear consensus and one process that was never designed for the job and therefore often also results in no improvement for the opposite reasons. I think I've gone wildly off topic here but the point is frankly I don't really see how any further sanction against TTN would improve the situation, it wouldn't really solve the underlying problem that a lot of Wikipedia's coverage of fiction does not reflect our policies or guidlines or the content expected of a high quality encyclopaedia. This is accepted by most people on all sides of the discussion, the only disagreement is on how the problem should be solved. We are all working towards a common goal. Guest9999 (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to response from User:Collectonian to User:Guest9999

Broadly I agree that, ideally, your way is the "right way" to do things, the main problem with it is that it is seen by many not to work in terms of the project as a whole in its current state. Whereas TTN's methods are more visibly - and actually - effective in removing poor content from the encyclopaedia on a large scale and within a reasonable time frame. In terms of ignoring consensus I think the fact that this discussion comes up time and time again is an indicator that any consensus as to validity or otherwise of his methods is questionable at best. At this point I think there is reasonable evidence of a consensus that aspects of fictional works which have received no reliable third party coverage in their own right but are important in terms of the work of fiction (such as many fictional characters) should be covered in "List of..." articles rather than stand alone pieces. Currently we have thousands of stand alone articles on non-notable fictional elements of this type, sometimes with a grouping list article. To the typical user quickly getting rid of the stand alone articles, leaving only the list article - even without any true merge - looks more like moving towards the consensus position than any other method currently available. Personally I think some kind of "Fiction for discussion" process where users could bring a set of articles to a central forum would be a good idea. The process could involve a week of discussion to try and establish what the consensus was for the group (merge these, keep this, source that, etc.); followed by a set period for implementing the changes (maybe three weeks, a month - maybe dependent on the number of articles involved) at which point any "to merge" articles which hadn't been properly merged would be redirected (obviously any merging could still take place after the implementation period simply using the article's history). Most people would have some problem with such a process - even if it didn't devolve into the kind of battleground regularly seen on this page - and I can't see it being anyone's ideal but that's the nature of a compromise (Except on Wikipedia where the nature of a compromise seems to be writing out your unaltered opinion in the most stringent possible terms under the heading of "Compromise"). Guest9999 (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should also be discussion on what is good spinoff material in the first place. Many times I see material split off when it doesn't need to be or I see delete !votes for stuff not being "independently notable" while split-offs aren't independent to start with. - Mgm|(talk) 11:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the counter argument to that is that if something isn't independently notable then it shouldn't have been "spun out" in the first place. I think the community is generally accepting of articles that have actually been been spun out for size or presentation reason and contribute to a high quality encyclopaedic treatment of a topic. The large tracks of independently created unsourced, original research and plot detail that make up a considerable proportion of the articles in question are another matter. Guest9999 (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

In many areas, Wikipedia leads the world in documenting minor fictional elements by direct summary from the primary source. TTN is not the only one who finds this a problem. I suspect that if the fanboys were better at self-policing then we would not have this recurrent problem, but as it is we get AfDs with snowstorms of "keep" votes because obviously Pikachu's left foot is waaaaay notable. Exaggeration for comic effect aside, the Wikiprojects are dominated by people who are fans and much of Wikipedia's coverage of fictional topics reads as fanwanks as a result. I would say that TTN's best approach would be to start a centralised discussion on a single series or group, establish what can and cannot be reliably documented by reference to independent secondary sources (because, after all, that is a very very long-standing principle) and work from there. And I think White Cat is just the editor to help him do it.

Alternatively, perhaps the time has come to change WP:NOT. At present, it says that Wikipedia is not a directory. In several areas, such as Canadian senior-school amateur hockey, Wikipedia is a directory because the fans will vote Keep to absolutely anything rather than have a single redlink in the series, even if there are no reliable independent sources about the team, only the occasional score printed in the local paper. Substantial sections of Wikipedia, including much of the fictional element coverage, is absolutely a directory compiled form primary sources by us. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Flatscan

There exists variance in editors' interpretations of the scope of AfD, specifically relating to redirects and mergers. While an editor's inclusionist/deletionist stance may affect his/her interpretation, all I've seen are defensible. Recent discussion Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 48#Mergers at AfD has a few example AfDs and relevant discussion, but what I read as limited consensus. Nominations that propose a merge only and lack a recommendation to delete (example) seem to be closed early per Wikipedia:Speedy keep clause 1, but treatment is inconsistent otherwise.

There is no centralized Wikipedia:Articles for merging or Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion; there is Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, but it is explicitly optional. I had seen this "Mergers for discussion" mentioned and floated it at VPP myself, but I have not seen it gain traction. I would prefer to see an actual discussion if mergers will be formally blocked from AfD. Flatscan (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Motion 4 (role of AfD, inclusion criteria, outcomes): I think that this is a fair restatement of current practice. If it passes, future discussion would benefit from having it as a fixed point of reference. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further thoughts:
  • As I wrote above, nominations lacking recommendations to delete are often speedy-kept. Nominations with obvious redirect/merge target articles – as long as they have those recommendations to delete – are rarely speedy-kept merely for having those target articles.
  • Does anyone argue that redirect and merge are invalid AfD outcomes (not "unsuccessful", but outright invalid)?
  • Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion: Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
Flatscan (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

As a semi-regular AfD closer, but not otherwise (I think) involved in this issue, I recommend that the Committee take no action. As a closer, I've never found TTN's AfDs to be a particular problem, either in volume or in substance, and they generally result in a useful consensus, as indicated by the graph above. It also remains unclear what remedies exactly are requested here.  Sandstein  19:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

I believe User:TTN is a disruptive user and an editor who has not edited as honestly as an editor should. I looked at his contributions over the last few days, and found him deleting/redirecting articles in contravention of very recent AFD decisions, removing large quantities of content without explanation, and otherwise attempting to override community consensus. It is clear that his actions drive away and discourage many editors. But most of the content he removes is no worse than harmless and is often worthwhile. Many of the articles he targets -- for examples, the Zoids models --would be, if sourced, exemplary articles on admittedly trivial subjects. He recently deleted/redirected the article on the pilot episode of a well-known US TV show which was guideline compliant and included appropriate information on ratings, reception, etc. He deleted large swathes of content from an article on an extremely well-known genre novel which showed its influence on later works in the field. He even tried to delete (longer ago) an article on a well-known, often written about Shakespearan character. His AFD notices are indiscriminately written and often misleading and inaccurate (characters called "weapons" for example. If TTN were really interested in improving Wikipedia, he'd work on BLPs or another important subject. His actions make me think he's more interested in bossing other users, especially younger users, around. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Phil Sandifer

TTN is personally responsible for the gutting of the primary area of Wikipedia that I use. When I say "that I use," to be clear, I mean "that I use for quick checking of background research in the course of academic scholarship." And when I say "personally responsible," to be clear, I mean that he used mass AfD nominations to overwhelm to ability of editors to repair articles.

He has damaged the project as a usable resource for looking things up. He has done so by abusing process in a nakedly disruptive fashion.

For the committee to suggest that some sort of new policy is needed to enshrine the principle "don't use disruptive tactics to gut content areas" is a joke. Unless the committee genuinely believes that TTN's actions do not amount to disruption, this is absolutely within their remit. Should the committee reject this again, I at least ask that they be brave enough to pass a finding that this is not disruption, as opposed to cheaply side-stepping the issue. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pixelface

It may be best if I didn't comment here, but I will. There is a currently a user RFC on my behavior because I have removed PLOT from NOT multiple times from March 2008 to December 2008. TTN "enforces" PLOT. Someone created a user RFC on TTN in the summer of 2007, but it was deleted on June 25, 2007 for being uncertified. In October in the request for extension of E&C2 by Phil Sandifer, I told Arbcom: "TTN is now on a mission to purge the "video game and anime and manga character categories.[64]" — and it's really sad to see that this current request is related to that. Stephen Bain rejected that request for extension, FloNight rejected, no other Arbcom members commented, and the request was archived by Rlevse on October 24. And now people who have supported TTN in the past are making requests about him.

Collectonian and I have disagreed many times. If Collectonian is making a request now, please do something. The arbitration committee has had ample time to deal with TTN. A year ago, the arbitration committee failed. In March, they gave us six months of relative peace and quiet, apart from TTN violating his editing restrictions twice. There may be 20 people or so on this website who endorse what TTN is doing and how he does it, but what about everyone else? The arbitration committee is Wikipedia's last resort. It exists to resolve disputes, not prolong them or make them worse. TTN's disruption spans so wide, that many of the new 10 arbitrators may have to recuse in any case about him. Please do something, or instead we can start another user RFC on TTN, although TTN has not edited since December 26. --Pixelface (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-statement / notice of proposal for WP:GAME

Maybe it's inappropriate to start this discussion while ArbCom is still discussing. But I get the sense that they think we should be settling this with ordinary community processes, instead of wading through the bureaucracy. I've started a guideline proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Gaming_the_system#another_game_type:_volume. If this is an inappropriate place to "advertise" this, I hope others will take matters into their own hands and help solicit good faith discussion. I think we can draw a line here, so that we never have to deal with this again, unless absolutely necessary. To assume good faith, I think TTN will abide by a guideline if it's clear. And if he proves that assumption wrong, I'll race you to be the first to certify an RFC. So let's write a guideline. Randomran (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-statement about status of WP:FICTION

If the arbcom is considering a broader case on this matter, it should be advised that a new proposal for a notability at WP:FICTION is very far along, and I am optimistic that it can attain guideline status by the end of January. If arbitrators view this as likely to change the underlying situation of this case, it may be advisable to wait. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

  • Comments are welcome, but please keep in mind the rule in place that threaded discussion is not needed here. Editors should move their comments into their own sections. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 16:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Threaded commentary put back into the sections of the commenters. Daniel (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been 1 review (done in the Waldorf education case, but that was a completely different scenario. I do not think there's a precedent of (re-)opening a case from motion. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 15:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Awaiting additional statements, but I am concerned, particularly by the allegation that encyclopedic content is being lost. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would accept this as a case (either a new case or a "review" case). The situation appears too complex for summary motions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why am I not surprised... Kirill 03:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, in case I am active yet or not, recused as I am non-impartial. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse, should this extend to after January 1. I'm trying to read this impartially, but in this case I don't trust myself due to my involvement in E+C 2. Wizardman 01:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may have a motion to offer once the new arbitrators take their seats or sooner if the currently sitting arbs request it to speed things along. — Coren (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. I have enforced sanctions against TTN as an administrator. While I unblocked under an agreement with TTN, my action was very controversial. Vassyana (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not inclined to reinstate a restriction if nobody has assessed how well that restriction affected the content. There are a lot of opinions about whether TTN should or should not be restricted, however there is not a lot of opinion about the effect of the TTN restriction over the last six months. It is obvious that TTN would prefer to operate unrestricted, and many think the project is benefiting from TTN being unrestricted, but how productive was he when restricted in this way? Did the state of this topical area degrade while he was restricted? Did it improve? The AFD Delsort list would be a good place to start researching. I'd prefer to see stats, graphs and specific examples. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks sgeureka; the graph is fantastic. You mention that TTN raised 40-50 AfDs over 1.5-years prior to the case, and 550 AfDs in three months since the remedy was lifted. Is that 550 AfDs, or 550 articles listed at AfD? Either way, that is a marked increase and a very worrying stat; I would like someone else to confirm those figures, and think it would be helpful if TTN can provide some background as to why so many. Any chance of a cummulative line or bar chart of TTN AfDs? I'd like to see the growth rate.
    The number of merge outcomes is also a worry, as our procedure for merge is Wikipedia:MERGE#How_to_merge_pages rather than WP:AFD, so it appears as if AFD is being abused when so few AFDs are being closed as "delete" (only ~25%).
    Also helpful would be stats and graphs of AfDs in this topical area that were not raised by TTN. It would be especially interesting to see how many AfDs occurred over the time when TTN was prohibited from raising them - if the topical area was being appropriately maintained when TTN was restricted, and TTN is causing this much drama and stress, I'd be more inclined to restrict TTN again in order to allow everyone else to return to steady and stress free maintainance. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So far, my view is that TTNs method is problematic, TTNs results are likely to be found to be acceptable, but .. do the end justifies the means? I cant help but notice that the community and committee is divided on this. As a result, I think the issue is too complex to deal with as a motion and like NYB, I would like to accept this as a proper case. If we give the community a bit more time to comment on whether they would like us to open this as a case, can we open a case from here by way of a motion? If not, I decline this request. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also extend my thanks to sgeureka, the graph is very helpful. I see that the larger community that opines at AFD agreed with TTN in 79.5% of cases that the nominated article should not exist as a standalone article, whether by straight deletion, redirect or merge; and that only 12% of the nominations were closed as clear keeps. Closing AFDs as redirect or merge is commonplace, and half a dozen AFDs a day (on average) is not flooding the system; at least, we are not seeing admins who routinely close AFDs posting to this request telling us that it is causing a problem. At this point, I am not seeing the need to extend or reinstate restrictions. Risker (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I continue to be unclear about which policy, guideline, or Community process or norm that TNN is violating now that would require the Committee to sanction TNN. I understand the concern about the rate of edits made on one topic. But, we don't sanction editors for adding too much content too quickly for the Community to monitor if the quality of the content is generally good, so I'm uncertain that it is wise for us to add editing restriction for an users doing a large number of edits that are slanted toward deleting or merging content. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse - I intend to become more active again in fiction-related areas, and some of this activity will involve carrying out mergers and may involve commenting at deletion discussions and merge discussions, so I feel I should recuse here. I will remind a clerk to update the wording about the majorities for the motions below. Carcharoth (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My views are broadly the same as in the last request for extension. As I said then, "the Committee is being asked (again) to remedy the community's failure to produce some coherent approach to these articles by banning someone with a particular point of view about them, and I do not think that is right." The difference this time is that TTN is also performing merges and/or redirects as well as making deletion nominations, but there's been no indication in the statements above that TTN is edit warring if these actions are reverted, which was the problematic behaviour in the prior cases. --bainer (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To comment further, after some brief activity following the closure of the RFC, there has been no activity whatsoever here in the past two months. There are many editors concerned to comment on this request but none concerned to contribute to policy development? --bainer (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that if the motions put forward below end up being inadequate to solve the problem satisfactorily, opening a new case appear indicated. — Coren (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

There are 17 active arbitrators, 4 of whom are recused, so 7 votes are a majority. 08:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

1) Because of the potential of overwhelming the community's ability to participate, large number of similar or substantially identical edits may be disruptive even if, individually, every single edit would have been uncontroversial.

Support:
  1. This is also why the bot policy exists. — Coren (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I agree with the wording but since I don't support any sanction I don't support the motion. --FloNight♥♥♥ 19:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per FloNight. Risker (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I would accept this matter as a case (new or review). The situation appears a bit more complex than should be handled through summary motions. I will add that although I am probably as responsible as anyone for the committee's increased use of the motion procedure last year, any situation complex enough that an arbitrator believes that five motions are called for to resolve it, probably calls for a case. (If my suggestion of opening a case is not adopted, I reserve the right to change my vote on these motions.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per FloNight and Newyorkbrad. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrator Discussion of motion:
  • Notwithstanding the fact that I have supported the motion, if there is substantial support for Newyorkbrad's view that the matter is complex and needs a full case, then I think we should open one (which would have to be Episodes and characters 3). Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2) TTN (talk · contribs) has not resumed the behavior that led to his being sanctioned in Episodes and characters 2. While the large number of submissions to Articles for Deletion is seen as problematic by a number of editors, community discussion appears sufficient to solve the matter at this time.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cautious support; it is true that the Episodes and characters case was about different behaviour, but they are all in the same ballpark of opposition to extensive coverage of fictional topics - especially recent popular fiction. Community discussion may not produce a situation which all can live with, in which case we ought to stand ready to reconsider, but it should have a chance first. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Sam. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I do not agree that community discussion has been sufficient to solve the matter; the community has come to us to seek relief. The request for the prior remedy to be reinstated has some support, so there are some who believe that the recently employed methods by TTN are more sophisticated, but are fundamentally the same as those raised in the previous case. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I agree with the wording but since I don't support any sanction I don't support the motion. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per FloNight. Risker (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I would accept this matter as a case (new or review). The situation is a bit complex for resolution by summary motion. I will add that even though I am probably as responsible as anyone for increased use of the motion procedure last year, any request that an arbitrator thinks calls for five motions to resolve it, probably warrants opening a case. (If it becomes clear that my suggestion of taking a case will not be adopted, I reserve the right to change my vote on these motions.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrator Discussion of motion:

3) TTN (talk · contribs) is reminded that he was urged to "work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community" in Episodes and characters. While none of his submissions of articles to AfD are, on their face, improper; the fact that members of the community have expressed serious concerns at the quantity and rhythm of those submissions should lead to his participation in discussion towards reaching consensus about how to best proceed rather than simply continue with the current method.

Support:
  1. In general, when a significant group of editors expresses concerns about how one is editing, the proper response is to stop to discuss and not plow forward. — Coren (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I agree in general, but I think we have addressed the matter in past ruling and TNN does not need further feedback. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I do not see a need for a motion to make a generic statement such as this, particularly a motion that would be attached to a user-specific RFAR. Risker (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This would be to hold TTN solely responsible for the community's collective failure to produce a policy or notability guideline in this content area. --bainer (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The evidence to support a "none of his submissions .. to AfD are .. improper" FoF has not been provided. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Per my votes on 1 and 2 above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrator Discussion of motion:

4) All editors are reminded that the Articles for Deletion process is the proper venue to submit articles that, in good faith, are not believed to be within Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Such discussions will sometimes result in findings that the article be redirected to, or merged with, another when the criteria are not met. Those results are within process, and legitimate.

Support:
  1. Restatement of existing practice. — Coren (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I do not see a need for a motion to make a generic statement such as this, particularly a motion that would be attached to a user-specific RFAR. Risker (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This description is at odds with WP:AFD due to the implication that AFD is the correct venue for discussing articles that should be merged/redirected because the topic fails the inclusion criteria. As a result it minimalises the opinions within the community that articles that able be merged/redirected should not be listed on AFD.
    This "reminder" makes AFD reliant on our inclusion criteria, however Wikipedia:Notability is only a guideline, so I am really uncomfortable with the committee essentially upgrading WP:N into a policy able to be enforced at WP:AFD. --John Vandenberg (chat) 15:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Per my votes on 1 and 2 above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Arbitrator Discussion of motion:

5) All editors are reminded that dispute resolution is not the proper venue for expressing disagreement about current policy and consensus. Repeatedly raising the same issue after it has been resolved, even when one disagrees with the result, is disruptive.

Support:
  1. Argument ad nauseam is not the proper way of "defeating" consensus. — Coren (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WP:STICK covers it well, I find. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I do not see a need for a motion to make a generic statement such as this, particularly a motion that would be attached to a user-specific RFAR. Risker (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Risker. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Per my votes on 1 and 2 above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrator Discussion of motion:

References

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=261711703"