Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Dispute resolution (⇛)
Negotiation
Article talk pages
Editor assistance (⇒)
Third opinion (⇒)
Request comments (⇒)
Wikiquette alerts (⇒)
Mediation
Mediation Cabal
Mediation Committee
Request mediation
Arbitration
Arbitration Committee
Request arbitration
Remedies
Editing restrictions
General sanctions
Wikipedia arbitration
About arbitration
Request arbitration
Guide to arbitration
Arbitration policy
Arbitration Committee
About the Committee
Agenda & announcements
Rules & procedures
History of the Committee
About the Clerks
Records
Active sanctions
Index of proceedings
Shortcuts:
WP:RFAR
WP:RFARB
WP:ArbReq
WP:A/R

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution 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.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:
Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification of an existing case
Request an amendment to an existing case
(This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed)
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case

Contents
           Arbitration Cases
changes • purge • v • d • e 
Case   Pages Date Drafter Clerk Target date
Evidence and Workshop
none
Voting
ADHD (•/ t) (e/ t) (w/ t) (p/ t) 5 Jul 2009 SBa Ea 17 Jul 2009
Motion to close or dismiss
none
Recently closed (see all)
Mattisse (•/ t) (e/ t) (w/ t) (p/ t) 1 July 2009 NYB Tip
A Man In Black (•/ t) (e/ t) (w/ t) (p/ t) 1 July 2009 WZ AGK
Seeyou (•/ t) (e/ t) (w/ t) (p/ t) 26 Jun 2009 NYB&WZ MD
Obama articles (•/ t) (e/ t) (w/ t) (p/ t) 21 Jun 2009 WZ MD&RP
Clarification and Amendment Requests
Case   Link Date      
Requests for Clarification
Digwuren (link) 6 Jul 2009
Pseudoscience (link) 6 Jul 2009
Obama articles (link) 26 Jun 2009
Requests for Amendment
Date delinking (4) (link) 21 Jun 2009
Everyking desysopping (link) 17 Jun 2009
Date delinking (3) (link) 17 Jun 2009



Requests for arbitration

Use this section to present a request for a new arbitration case.

Before requesting arbitration, you should read and familiarize yourself with the Arbitration guide, which covers when cases will be accepted, presenting a case, and what to expect. Then, read the following instructions:

To make a request, please follow these steps:

  1. Edit the arbitration request section, copy-paste the following template:
    {{subst:arbreq}}
    below the first header and click save/submit.
  2. Edit the arbitration request section again to fill in the names of the involved parties, and provide links to any prior attempts to resolve the dispute (such as formal or informal mediation or talk page discussion).
  3. State your request in 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. You are trying to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention; you are not trying to prove your case at this time. If your case is accepted for Arbitration, an evidence page will be created that you can use to provide more detail.
  4. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person whom you identify as a party in the request. To do this, you can simply add the following template:
    {{subst:arbcom notice|section name}}
    to the respective talk pages, replacing "section name" with the title given to your Arbitration request. Once you have done this, post diffs of the notification to the Confirmation section of your request.

This is not a page for discussion.

  • Reply to another person's comment in your section. See the relevant section of the arbitration guide.
  • It may be to your advantage to paste the template into your user space or use an off-line text editor to compose your request before posting it here. The main Requests for arbitration page is not the place to work on rough drafts.
  • Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
  • Please do not open cases yourself; only an Arbitrator or Clerk may do so.
  • Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee (details).
  • Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one.
  • After a request is made, the active Arbitrators vote on whether to accept or decline the case; 0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

ADHD edits

Initiated by Cityzen451 (talk) at 16:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Statement by Cityzen451

The parties involved removed all contributions of a user which began with an attempt to update and adhd book reference articles on dyslexia and ADHD

the dyslexia section the user removed the inclusion of a further reading section, and references to popular reading for the subject where advertising is not relevant with respect to a book listing and bias toward a book simply because it published createspace. The contributor to the article on Dyslexia seems to have taken propritory of the article and I have observed them deleting any and all contributions to the article. It would seem that their view of the structure of the article is their concern

one party mrOllie went on to delete every contribution I have ever made to wikipedia, in wholely unrelated articles!

I have read the section on levels of conflict resolution and in the circustances I outline they are not mandatory, givensince took it upon themselves to delete all entries I have ever made! Because my username is the same as the doamin for an older entry I made is not STRONG evidence of conflict of conflict it is circumstantial evidence. However, The issue was disputed last year and a compromise was made, to delete all that work out of hand is malicious. I chose Cityzen451 as a username because it was a domain for a piece of software based on my research. As for the issue of Conflict of Interest, from what I have read there is no rule that you cannot contribute if you are involved, just that caution should be excercised.

I am also concerned as to why uninvloved users without real reason to comment or get invloved, it seems they are more interested in stopping an arbitration than resolving a dispute. It has to be considered that this is wasting my time too

I apologise for not using the correct talk page... had someone directed me in this direction I would have used it. All atempts at approaching the editors were ignored.

It could have been suggested that I remove the links to Amazon, since that is not an issue

this is Not an "Edit War", that is purely an exageration, if contributions have been reverted only a few times, as It is common to simply revert a statement back since it avoids conflict with overly officious users, who take it upon themselves to overly police articles, or those who have taken unsolicited ownership of them. if the objection is made then as discussion ensues. an "edit war" is if this persists over time, which it hasnt, and will not. I have attempted to discuss it civily and tried to discuss it with contributors, albeit incorrectly, you have to give users scope to learn. But to delete all prior entries in response to that is simply childish and malicious. This is an issue that is specifically for Arbitration.

You do not just go through someones contributions and delete them all, without discussing it with someone this is the main point of the arbitration, not the recent contributions, you just dont do that. There is not point considering other approaches when face with that kind or reaction.

I feel it is inappropriate other users who contribute to the articles in question put forward objections without clearly pointing out they have a conflict of interest (that they are editors and very much involved in the arbitration) jumping onboard and trying to bully the decison, and flinging mud with partial interpretations of wikipedia guidelines, I feel the arbitrators are well able to look into these issues, and other members claiming to be impartial not involved should wait for a review and not attempt to muddy the waters from the main issue. The issue of arbitration is not a matter of voting. The Arbitrator will surely look at the evidence themselves I now discover that an edited entry in conflicts of interest has been added, with my signature ...20:45, 6 July 2009... which I did not write... taken from the above text... yet the signature below is 18:59 can anyone explain this please?

I now discover that an edited entry in conflicts of interest has been added, with my signature ...20:45, 6 July 2009... which I did not write... taken from the above text... yet the signature below is 18:59 can anyone explain this please?

Cityzen451 (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Gordonofcartoon

I'm involving myself as a party to state my view that arbitration is inappropriate. Cityzen451 has not tried lower levels of dispute resolution. The username is also strong evidence that there's a conflict of interest involved: see WP:COIN#Cityzen451. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: having seen his posts so far, I strongly suspect that the intention of Cityzen451 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log) is primarily disruptive wikilawyering, trolling even. There is no justification whatsoever for a new user to jump straight to an arbitration request. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by WhatamIdoing (uninvolved)

Cityzen451 has been edit warring to include specific out-of-mainstream books, with links to Amazon.com's website, in ==Further reading== sections at Dyslexia[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and ADHD[6]. The list has been removed by multiple editors. The other editors are right to remove undiscussed books that they consider fringe-y and unimportant, and especially to remove the inappropriate links to the booksellers (per WP:ELNO #5 and #15 and Template:Cite book#Description ("Do not use this field to link to any commercial booksellers (such as Amazon.com)").

Cityzen451's efforts at dispute resolution to date have been wholly inadequate: brief conversations on the individual editor's talk pages. Not a word at either article talk page, no RfCs, nothing -- just an edit war, a complaint about "all my contributions being deleted", and the filing here. I think this request should be promptly rejected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by WLU (uninvolved)

Endorse User:WhatamIdoing's summary. Also, books are uniformly of low-quality, not the scholarly, extensive, expert and comprehensive volumes that a further reading section would require. They look like popular how-to manuals. Arbitration entered into far too quickly, this is a waste of time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


Statement by Dolfrog

The dyslexia article is the main article of the WIKI Dyslexia Project, and in the last two months it has been edited to become a Summary Article with new sub categories and sub articles to provide more indepth information about dyslexia, thus enabling the main article to become more navigable for the reader and casual reader. The content of the books in question do not match the content of content of the Summary Dyslexia article as a whole, and it was suggested to Cityzen451 that a better place to add his further reading which he chose to ignore respective sub dyslexia artilces and this is not the correct article in the dyslexia project for them The probably most suitable sub article for this book to be added as further reading, if the other project editors agree, would be the dyslexia sub Category Management of dyslexia main article. There was no discussion on any of the dyslexia talk pages about adding these books to the project pages prior to this Wikipedia Request for Arbitration. Cityzen451 did post a message on my User talk:Dolfrog the first attempt "dogfrog queries on dyslexia listing" was edited 3 times and then deleted by Cityzen451, but reverted the delete. Cityzen451 started a new section "references to books in the Dyslexia article" I made one reply which was making constructive suggestions as to where these books may fit within the dyslexia projects articles. and the next reply was notification of the Arbitration.

Regarding the ADHD article, I am aware that this article has been radically revised in recent months, and that there have been many heated disputes regarding content between the editors most of which have now been resolved. So if Cityzen451 tried to add his content in a similar way on the ADHD article then I would imagine the editors there would consider the lack of discussion rude to say the least.

Statement By Cityzen451

Look I would like to remove this arbitration myself, can it be removed please.

I agree an rFC is appropriate, could someone advise me on this.

Briefly, my concerns are about having all content I have contributed to Wikipedia punatively deleted, and what appears to be an undercurrent policy that has formed to discourage new contributors. My concern is that Wikipedia is clearly moving away from what it is intended. In fact you are all probably aware of how the approachablity of Wikipedia is mocked.

The crux of my point is made clearly by Dogfrog, (dragged into Arbitration inappropriately) an additon of a further reading, now agreed... on the grounds of not consulting, for a relatively minor necessary contribution for a further reading section, yet how is the same justification for MrOllie in the same timeframe to go through all my contributions, and not just delete suposedly inappropriate references, but to remove all contribution to articles I have made, assuming bad faith. One rule for one...

I chose arbitration wrongly and apologise, but the way it has unfolded actually does show this.

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/8/0/0)

  • Decline - content dispute. Problematic conduct by any of the editors involved can be handled by uninvolved admins as needed. Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Reject I'm not seeing the need for arbcom involvement at this point. WP:AN is probably a better venue at this point. If these actions occurred on arbitration case pages, the arb clerks would be quite capable of dealing with it. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline. Wizardman 05:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline. For the content dispute, please follow the dispute resolution guidance and use content noticeboards (such as here) to seek outside opinions. For the behavioral issues, nothing here seems beyond the ability of the administrators' noticeboard to handle. --Vassyana (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline with similar reason and advice as other arbitrators. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline per my colleagues' comments. It would be helpful if an uninvolved administrator could assist these editors in getting to mediation or wherever else they may need to be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline per above. Could someone please help Cityzen451, who is wanting assistance with how to initiate an RFC. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline:  Roger Davies talk 10:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Kosovska Mitrovica naming dispute

Initiated by Interestedinfairness (talk) at 10:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Statement by interestedinfairness

There has been repeated discussion regarding the correct, and most widely recognized English spelling of the name for the city (currently spelled "Kosovska Mitrovica"). Certain users who were apposed to the renaming the article to "Mitrovica", have since come round to the idea. There remains however, no consensus or will, amongst administrators present in the discussion to take the initiative and rename the article. In fact, even the editors who acknowledge the correct English spelling of the city, have left the page without participating further in discussion after the consensus was reached here. I do not posses the know-how to change the name of the article and the direct, re-directs. Nevertheless, I think this is the correct route to take before any unilaterally actions. Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, who wrote this and presented it as my statement? --Cinéma C 17:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

user:Hersfold did (?). Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to dab
This is exactly what I'm talking about. No accountability or willingness to help new users like my self with content dispute or the right procedures to under take. The realities have changed with regards to the Mitrovica page and the old arb com ruling. I have given countless sources as per Wikipedia's naming convention and other editors and more worryingly administrators refuse to do anything about it. I agree with dab in the sense that this is not the place to be resolving content dispute however, when administrators are not willing to do anything in light of all the evidence I have provided in the talk page in favor of my proposal, then what am I to do? May I also point out that admin:dab agreed with my proposal before. Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Response to admins
Thanks for your responses. It should be a clear cut case as Wikipedia does offer a set of relatively easy tests to conduct in order to work out the most common English word. I have posted all the findings on the talk page but no one is willing to take it any further even after consensus between two of the most vociferous editors was reached. Its a shame I have to try out another procedure now -- *sighs*. Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

statement by Dbachmann

My involvement in this is pointing out proper procedure within WP:NAME to discuss arguable naming alternatives. My recommendations did not include "run to arbcom if you do not get your way". I do not have an opinion on which title is "better" and I am not interested in this arbcom case. I do not think that the arbcom should hear this, as it is a pure content dispute, like thousands of other toponymy article titles, there is more than one arguable location for this article, and it is purely a matter of consensus where the article will reside.

There aren't any points of user conduct here other than the more generic problems with tenacious Kosovo-related patriotic trolling. There already is an arbcom ruling on this, putting the topic under "article probation".

Interestedinfairness (talk · contribs) is certainly a candidate for {{User article ban arb}}, but since there is already a ruling on this, the matter would seem to stand to administrative discretion and does not need to take another loop through arbcom. --dab (𒁳) 08:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

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

Response to Cinema & interestedinfairness: My apologies, I'd assumed that the first statement would have been Cinema's as they're filed as the filing party above. Sorry for the confusion. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/0/0)

  • Decline: As currently framed, this is a content dispute which is not within ArbCom's bailiwick.  Roger Davies talk 14:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Awaiting statements. Please explain why a discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves would not be a satisfactory venue for resolving this dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Decline. There seems now to be general agreement that this should be addressed elsewhere. It would be helpful if an uninvolved adminstrator would provide the parties with ongoing guidance as they move toward a resolution of this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline, I think going to WP:MEDCOM or elsewhere would help here. Wizardman 15:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline - even if it weren't a content dispute it would still be premature to reach the arbitration stage. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline premature. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Reject. Try a Centralized Discussion as was done in ARBMAC2, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia — Rlevse • Talk • 23:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline - premature. This is still a low-level content dispute. Try mediation or get more opinions through a listing at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Carcharoth (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline. Premature. Please explore the various dispute resolution options. There are also noticeboards for geopolitical and ethnic disputes; original research, and evaluating source reliability, as well as proper weight and neutral presentation. There's also a content noticeboard for content issues that are not covered by more specific noticeboards. Please take advantage of these forums to garner some outside input and clarify the issues, while pursuing dispute resolution to reach consensus. Any conduct problems can be addressed by administrators, both within "everyday" policy and under the arbitration sanctions on the broader topic area. --Vassyana (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline. Other arbitrators have offered many venues of further discussion and dispute resolution which could be use. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of "disputed territories", "occupied territories" and related terminology in the context of the Arab-Israeli dispute

Initiated by Peter cohen (talk) at 12:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Statement by Peter cohen

There is a roving content dispute on the use of terminology regarding the Israeli-occupied territories. I have identified 20 threads spread over ten article talk pages where this or related terminology has been disputed this year. There are many older discussions too. (This search contains a high proportion of valid hits.)

I have previously started a thread at WP:IPCOLL to initiate a central discussion on the terminology but the level of participation there has been less than in several of the threads elsewhere. Although there is no currently unaddressed conduct issue in this area, the history of problematic behaviour over similar terminology is such that it is highly likely that things will reach a level where Arbcom intervention will be necessary at some point in the future. Further the related RfC at Talk:Golan Heights generated various accusations and suggestions of misconduct. I am therefore requesting that Arbcom take pre-emptive action and mandate that a centralised solution be created to the content issue along the lines of those being reached regarding the naming of Ireland articles and the use of "Judea and Samaria" etc.

Discussion pages where the "disputed" v "occupied" or related terminology has been discussed this year include:

discussion first post last post duration
Talk:Golan_Heights#Pro-israeli.21_BIASED_article.21_Non_neutral 2009-01-01 19:38 2009-01-24 22:56
Talk:Status_of_territories_captured_by_Israel#Remove_Tag_Citing_Neutrality.2FAccuracy_Dispute 2008-01-27 08:35 2009-02-17 04:32
Talk:Avigdor_Lieberman/Archive_2#Cities.2FSettlements_in_occupied.2Fdisputed_territory 2009-02-20 14:01 2009-02-21 03:25 1 day
Talk:Palestinian_territories#Occupied_Palestinian_Territories_or_Palestinian_Territories.3F 2009-01-13 21:20 2009-02-27 07:47
Talk:Israeli-occupied_territories#reference_tag_broken 2009-03-09 04:15
Talk:Occupied_territories#A_modest_demand. 2009-04-18 06:09 2009-04-20 05:45 2 days
Talk:Jerusalem_Light_Rail#occupied_to_disputed_and_such 2009-04-19 17:37 2009-04-20 09:57 1 day
Talk:Golan_Heights#.22are_currently_part_of_the_State_of_Israel.22 2009-05-15 18:24 2009-05-15 19:42 1 hour
Talk:Israel/Archive_29#Disputed_Territories 2009-02-25 2009-05-24 19:23
Talk:Syria#Biased_Golan_heights_section_3 2009-03-27 04:42 2009-06-04 15:59
Talk:Golan_Heights#.22disputed.22_.22Jewish_communities.22 2009-05-26 07:40 2009-06-07 16:27
Talk:Ariel_(city)#Neutrality.3F 2009-05-25 04:05 2009-06-08 03:56
Talk:Golan_Heights#The_Neutrality_of_this_Article_is_Disputed 2009-06-10 15:59 2009-06-14 18:40
Talk:Golan_Heights#RfC:_Terminology_in_regards_to_the_Golan_Heights 2009-06-14 19:15 2009-06-23 07:14
Talk:Golan_Heights#Claims_of_occupation_in_the_lead 2009-06-23 08:13 2009-06-23 16:47
Talk:Golan_Heights#I_do_not_support_the_actions_and_views_of_Oren0_as_3rd_party 2009-06-23 08:51 2009-06-25 01:02
Talk:Golan_Heights#some_more_thing_left 2009-06-24 12:47 2009-06-25 08:18
Talk:Golan_Heights#occupied_territories 2009-06-26 02:44 2009-06-26 13:52
Talk:Israel#UN_Security_Council_Res._242_and_338_and_Disputed_Territories 2009-06-19 17:55 2009-06-28 15:35
Talk:Golan_Heights#Is_this_article_gonna_follow_the_rules_of_wikipedia_or_not.3F 2009-07-01 20:42

--Peter cohen (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC), most recent post 00:15, 2 July 2009

As requested below, I have now made a formatted list sorted by last edit and have also added a brand new entry which ahs appeared wince this request was opened.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I note the request below and elsewhere for aprties to be added. I was waiting for a reply to my question on the talk page here on whom to add and I have also been away from hte net for 50-60 hours. I've started adding people and will be posting notifications elsewhere tonight (UK time). More will be added tomorrow.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Nsaum75

I am the editor who opened the RfC on Golan Heights[9]. The article had been subject to edit warring over terminology related to how the Golan should be described. Editors had been fighting over whether to refer to land area as "disputed" or "occupied" by Israel; there were also edit wars over whether or not to call the settlements established by Israel as "Israeli Settlements", "Jewish Communities" or "Illegal Settlements". In hopes of trying to create some progress in the debate, I felt that the RfC should be opened as to at least establish a consensus as to whether the land area should be referred to as "disputed", "occupied", or some other variation.

During the period of time that the RfC was open, a number of new editors (with little or no edit history) began making posts stating similar positions.

In addition to new editors, a significant number of IP addresses (with little or no edit history) began posting similar positions.

At this point, I became concerned that there may be possible WP:MEAT, WP:SPA or WP:CANVASS involved, so I placed a neutral notice regarding Wikipedia's policies at the top of the RfC.[19], [20]. I also approached ANI and requested input regarding my concerns about possible WP:MEAT, SPA and CANVASS.[21]

After the RfC had been posted for a week, I made another post to the AN[22] requesting a neutral, 3rd party administrator check over the RfC and close it. This was met with disatisfaction by some editors, as the closing Admin had userboxes on his page that he was Jewish and supported the existance of an Israeli state.(see: Talk:Golan_Heights#I_do_not_support_the_actions_and_views_of_Oren0_as_3rd_party) It was argued that since the editor was Jewish and supported the existance of Israel, he "can not be considered neutral to this subject, of course he is gonna side with Israel."

The debate degraded to the point where there was an argument over whether or not the Arabic or Hebrew name for the Golan Heights should come first in the lead. (see: Talk:Golan_Heights#Arabic_text_before_Hebrew). There was a further issue raised with one of the main contributors to RfC, User:Supreme_Deliciousness, because of several anti-Israeli and pro-syrian viewpoints expressed on his userpage.[23]

In my opinion, as things currently stand, it has become next to impossible to find a fair and equitable balance between editors and sourced information, on both sides of the issue. Debate is always good, as it helps to improve articles by making sure all information is questioned and researched; and everyone is inherently bias to some extent (even if they do not realize it) however strong nationalistic viewpoints expressed by a several editors have unfortunately made it difficult for a consensus to be reached regarding balanced terminology in this and a number of other Arab-Israeli related articles.

Statement by Oren0

I became involved in this dispute when I responded to an AN post asking for a neutral administrator to close an RfC regarding whether the Golan Heights should be referred to as "occupied", "disputed", or something else. This RfC was flooded by new and anonymous editors, many of whom replied very similarly, starting with "reply to RfC" even if they were in a totally different section ([24] [25] [26] [27] [28]). There was very likely some meatpuppetry going on there. I closed this RfC, stating in a nutshell that claims of "occupation" or "dispute" should be mentioned in the context of who is making them (e.g. "Syria considers the land to be illegally occupied by Israel") provided such claims can be reliably sourced, and that Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of making blanket statements regarding the status of lands where sources and nations may disagree (e.g. "the land is occupied"). I stand by this closure as the only WP:NPOV way to handle the matter, and another uninvolved administrator has indicated that he was going to close the RfC the same way but I had beaten him to it.

User:Supreme Deliciousness subsequently opened a talk page section questioning whether I could be considered uninvolved given that I have userboxes on my user page indicating that I am Jewish and that I support the existence of the state of Israel. I find the assertion that a Jew could not fairly close an RfC to be mildly offensive, though I do welcome the question regarding whether my support for the existence of Israel may taint my judgment. My response to this is that the vast majority of the western world supports the existence of the state of Israel. Especially in the United States, the opinion that Israel as a state has no right to exist is considered very rare. I don't believe that holding such a common opinion should disqualify me from being neutral. To the more general point of my involvement in Middle East-related articles, I have done very little editing in this topic area. Looking at my top 100 articles edited, the only two that show up in this field are Golan Heights, all of which occurred subsequent to the RfC closure, and Gaza War (#60, 8 total edits, most recently in February of this year). My talk contributions are similar.

I completely stand by my own neutrality at the time of this closure and maintain that it was really the only way for that discussion to be closed in accordance with WP:NPOV. I believe that read independently of who wrote it my RfC closure was entirely fair and reasonable. As for the larger issue at hand, this is a content dispute that hasn't risen to the level of needing ArbCom involvement IMO. There has been some edit warring and at least one block (User:Supreme Deliciousness for 3RR on a semi-related article) but nothing that requires ArbCom attention. I have also placed a warning on the talk page pointing users towards WP:ARBPIA and I think that's all that needs to be done here. In short, I see no compelling reason for ArbCom to take this case. Oren0 (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved user Jtrainor

I think it would probably be a good idea for Arbcom to jump on this before it turns into the usual shitstorm that all I/P related arguments end up as. Jtrainor (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved user Sm8900

Hi. I am reading this proceeding with interest. i suggest that all parties try to seek a compromise solution. There is no need for this to degenrate into an edit conflict requiring action by ArbCom. I have been an active member of WP:IPCOLL at various intervals. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Comment I am leaning towards accepting this case, although wondered whether amending the previous West Bank/J&S case would be more helpful to facilitate finding a solution to the naming of the Golan Heights, which is technically not covered by the former case. To clarify, Peter Cohen asked me a couple of days ago for my opinion, and upon looking at the recent RfC was struck by its lack of clarity and structure compared with the soon-to-close Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Placename guidelines. Given there has now been a RfC on the Golan Heights, I suspect this is the port of final call (?) Addendum, depending on other arbs' views on the situation thus far, another outcome might be a motion for one or more neutral admins to chair a new and structured Request for Comment on the disputed naming guidelines on the Golan Heights within a two month time-frame. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Query. I clicked on two of those discussions mentioned by Peter, and they were concluded prior to (or as a consequence of) the W&S case closing. I think it would be important to understand how many of those discussions mentioned by Peter occurred after the W&S case, and post W&S discussions are the ones we would want to review more closely. A chronological list, or table with start and end of the threads, would be very helpful. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Decline. I dont see community consensus to open a case, nor do I think that there is an obvious need for one. Another RFC would help, provided it is very well prepared with input from both sides. Formal mediation also would help. If there are user conduct problems preventing resolution, they need to be outlined to us. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Questions. Have the content noticeboards been used to draw some outside input? (Specifically, I am considering the NPOV and ethnic conflicts noticeboards.) If not, I suggest noting the disagreement (with discussion links) at both, asking for outside input and the attention of uninvolved administrators. Are there extensive conduct issues involved? If so, can these be handled on the community level? If so, what method would be best? If not, why not? Are you asking for a requirement that certain naming disputes related to the Israel/Palestine topic area be discussed centrally at the IPCOLL page? Or, are you perhaps suggesting that a centralized request for comments be utilized? If not, what exactly are you requesting? On the matter of topic, are you asking that this one specific dispute be bound by such a requirement or that all naming disputes meeting certain criteria be so bound? If the latter, what benchmarks would you suggest? --Vassyana (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Also noting that the parties involved in this dispute should be notified of this request. --Vassyana (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - agree with Casliber that a good approach would be: "a motion for one or more neutral admins to chair a new and structured Request for Comment on the disputed naming guidelines on the Golan Heights within a two month time-frame". Carcharoth (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Reject. Not ripe for a case, now. Try again now with a RFC style discussion. I would like to see if the Community can design and run a discussion that will result in a semi-binding result before we get involved. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline Wizardman 03:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

DreamHost

Initiated by SarekOfVulcan (talk) at 03:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

The article on web hosting company DreamHost (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is hopelessly deadlocked between satisfied customers SarekOfVulcan and Scjessey, and ex-customer Judas278 and non-customer 194x144x90x118. Judas and 194x treat any positive information about the company as advertising or a conflict of interest on Sarek and Scjessey's parts. This has resulted in the article being fully protected for most of the past two months, first by SarekOfVulcan and almost immediately after expiration by PhilKnight, the informal mediator. Suggestions for new edits are met with claims of advertisement. Information such as the names of the founders of the company and that they met in college is challenged as controversial and BLP-violating. Civility has occasionally (or frequently) gone out the window on various people's parts. Reducing the auto-archive period from 90 days to 45 days was decried as abusive and disruptive, even though it reduced the talk page from 285K to 80K. There were allegations that Sarek misused his admin bit by removing a sentence and then fully protecting the article.

It is currently undergoingjust underwent an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DreamHost (2nd nomination) that seems quite likely to endwas closed as keep.

I have not filed an RFC/U, because there isn't just one editor with issues here, and I think it's fairer to subject all involved parties to scrutiny.

  • Added Theserialcomma as an involved party, since he's a long-term editor, and just made an edit showing the same problems I mentioned above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Current dispute

We currently have a slow-motion edit war over a new section of the article. On June 23, Scjessey added Category:File hosting. On June 30, Bjweeks removed it, but readded it after a query from Scjessey and commented "it might be helpful if the article explained or mentioned why it is in the category". I came up with a short section on the "Files Forever" feature, sourcing it to an Official DreamHost Wiki revision created by the company's founder explaining how it worked, and a Spanish-language blog called "Genbeta", which is listed in Google News and has about 60 pages of results in Google when searching for the name, to show that there was apparently more than just English-language interest in the feature. Judas reverted later that day, with the edit summary "If significant, you could find more than One Spanish language source, and self-published unreliable wiki" TheRealFennShysa reverted, asking for better rationales, and Theserialcomma took it back out, commenting "the file hosting section should be removed. it's not encyclopedic" and "removin the whole section. um, the source is a blog."

On the talkpage, he said "as an admin, i'd hope that you would know how wikipedia feels about blogs in situations like this" and "well, if you don't, i'll just tell you. the spanish language blog is not a good source and should be removed". I responded, "Why is it not a good source? How do you know it's not the Spanish equivalent to TechCrunch?" and pointed him to the RSN. He responded, "how about you prove that it *is* reliable? your spanish must not be as good as mine, because i took one look at it and discovered it's an unreliable blog, which is why i removed it. you added it back without knowing anything about the site, or that it even was a blog" and pointed me at the RSN. Scjessey commented, saying he'd like to see better sourcing added, and Theserialcomma posted, apropos of nothing in Scjessey's comment that I could see, "spanish blogs don't become reliable because you don't speak spanish." After some more sourcing discussion, including Theserialcomma's comment of "but don't listen to me; i only speak spanish and actually understand the site. edit war instead", Judas278 inquired, "Projecting forward, will you want to re-publish their entire marketing and PR campaigns here in this article, since you can find a self-published blog or wiki article by a founder, for each campaign? Is this the purpose of wikipedia.?"

Shortly afterward, 194x commented, "I'm gonna go out on a limb but these repeated attempts to include advertising material by Scjessey can in no way be considered good faith edits since he should be fully aware that this sort of conduct is not acceptable." (This, incidentally, is the metaphoric limb Scjessey was responding to in the diff 194x posted below.) This statement was inaccurate, considering that Scjessey had done nothing to the article since his addition of the category a week and a half previously. After Scjessey's comment, Theserialcomma said, "How exactly do you 'metaphorically' snap someone's limb off and smash them over the head with it", misconstruing the comment.

Earlier today, in a discussion about protecting the article while undergoing arbitration (if we get back to net +4), 194x said "Admission of guilt: It's like this the other day Scjessey suggested something and I responded to it with a *Strong oppose and some explanation but that's not really the way one is supposed to respond to such things, one is rather to try and discuss the matters and such but the thing is with this user Scjessey is that he repeatedly suggest adding advertisement material to the article and such and it has been discussed repeatedly before but he just doesn't take a hint so well one just simply loses his patience with him and doesn't assume good faith like one is mandated to do cause good faith seems so far fetched in his case and instead just tries to save some time by voicing his opposition in the clearest way possible. I also want to state that when it comes to this article that a new attitude simply isn't credible either. There you have it I'm guilty." (What I'm getting out of that is a refusal to assume good faith and an unwillingness to move forward. YMMV.)

Since then, Judas took the section back out with "most discussion disagrees with the addition, so removing" and I restored with "Nothing like a consensus to delete at this point. It's not advertising, and it's not controversial." (For those keeping score at home, that's one addition and two restorations by me, one restoration by TheRealFennShysa, two removals by Judas278, and one removal by Theserialcomma.)

ETA: Since Judas hasn't been able to obtain a clear consensus for his version of the article, he says that "Work to consensus seems gone." He also claims that because DreamHost hasn't answered all the questions that have been added to the Wiki page for the service, it's encyclopedic to say that "numerous unanswered questions remain."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

ETA^2: I asked for further opinions on COI issues at the WP:COIN. The editor who responded found no COI issues, specifically stating that referral compensation did not create a COI. Judas made various familiar arguments, and was told that he might want to redact at least one of them. His response was that his arguments were plausible, to which the other editor stated that it appeared he was acting out of a personal grudge.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Responses

Response to arbitrator Risker
  • Actually, I don't think this is a content dispute, because the disputes have been spread over every part of the article and talk page. It seems clear to me that it's a user conduct issue -- I'm just not sure whose conduct is the problem.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Response to Judas278
  • I believe that calling me a liar right in the case illustrates nicely why I consider this a conduct issue, rather than a content dispute.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In this request, you say that you've listened to other editors and modified your behavior. On the talk page, you point to a previous revision calling company sites "advertising" with the comment "told you so". That doesn't sound like learning to me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • You say in your statement that you began editing when you saw tags being removed. I asked you earlier if you had previously edited as Guantanamo247 (talk · contribs): you never answered. Guantanamo's pattern of username, use of language, and allegations of off-wiki activity by Scjessey look a great deal like yours. Did you edit in 2007 under this username?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "I thought this was the place for briefly determining a need for a case, not for arguing the case" -- I agree, which is why my first statement was short and as neutral as I could make it, including personal attacks and questions about misusing the bit. However, Vassyana stated they were open to being convinced there was after all a need for Arbitration, so the only way to do that was to expand on my statement.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Response to 194x144x90x118
  • Regarding "Let me start by saying that I've acctually only ONCE! edited the article and cosidering that I can not see how I've been responsible for the 'the article being fully protected for most of the past two months'":
  1. I didn't say that
  2. Reviewing your contribution history to the talkpage:
    • first edit: reverted by Theserialcomma without comment.
    • second edit, essentially the same as the first, plus "BTW if anybody goes ahead and deletes this section of mine again then you'll have a new warrior stepping upto the plate to participate in this little discussion of yours.": reverted by Dayewalker as WP:SOAPBOXing.
    • third edit, essentially the same as the first, plus "Feel free to remove this section and my remarks AGAIN which sparked this whole auto archiving discussion in the first place, I'll just put them right back up and then some.": reverted by Dayewalker as WP:SOAPBOXing.
    • next edit: included "archiving ... is an attempt to bury the evidence by the same people who have so far put a great deal of energy into making the entire article about Dreamhost seem like one big 'Ahhh all normal'."
    • next edit: included "Oh do not attempt to act like you're just being an honest wikipedian out to improve the online encyclopedia.", reverted by Scjessey for soapboxing
    • next edit: restored third edit, reverted by me for discussing subject rather than article.
    • next edit: restored deleted comments, reverted by Theserialcomma.
    • next edit: restored deleted comments, reverted in two chunks by Onorem for discussing subject and me for personal attacks. After a bit more of this, I semi-protected the talk page.
    • Later on, right after full protection on the article had expired: "This article is not protected so anyone is free to edit it at his own discretion.... I won't allow this article to be turned into a nice free biased advertisement for dreamhost." Shortly after this comment, PhilKnight re-protected the article.

So yeah, you have been responsible for a lot of the protection here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I've been watching 194x144x90x118 (talk · contribs) for a while. Something appears to be not right. Their second edit ever is way too knowledgeable (and snarky) for them to be a new user. I suggest checkuser. Jehochman Talk 13:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the user previously edited as an unregistered account from that IP address, see 194.144.90.118 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS). Thatcher 13:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Did you check for the involvement of other accounts, or is it just the named account and the IP? I am not sure why this editor has been somewhat caustic from the start. 194, can you say whether somebody mistreated you at some point in your history here? Jehochman Talk 03:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Upon quick review it seems that 194 was on the wrong end of a bad sock puppetry permablock. That would tend to make a user feel grumpy. Jehochman Talk 04:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not keen to preempt the Committee, but it might be useful for these matters to be reviewed at WP:COIN or WP:NPOVN. This is the sort of case that those boards routinely process. Jehochman Talk 14:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Note to Sjakkalle

I suggest somebody uninvolved give 194x144x90x118 counseling on how to avoid disruptive editing. Should that fail, they can be blocked by any uninvolved administrator. A case is not needed for such routine actions. Jehochman Talk 11:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Note to the committee

Per my findings at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#DreamHost, I am prepared to indefinitely block Judas278 (talk · contribs) as a disruption-only account if they will not agree to refrain from further interaction with Scjessey. Judas278 appears to have used a prior account, Guantanamo247 (talk · contribs) which commenced harassing Scjessey with it's very first edit.[29] The user appears to be here only to bother Scjessey. That is clearly not allowed. Jehochman Talk 17:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Judas278

I welcome any productive steps. I am not familiar enough with the options to have an opinion on the best route. I believe significant limitation of Scjessey's participation is appropriate. In summary, SarekOfVulcan's statement, “Simon, please take another look at WP:OWN. You're way too close to this article to look at it objectively” was excellent advice, which unfortunately has not been followed.

I do not treat “any positive information” as advertising or COI. I do object to pro-company editors removing well-sourced negative information while adding positive information without using similar standards, or by claiming “non-controversial” exceptions. I am an ex-customer, not a fan, and I previously observed the development of this article. I began editing the article when I saw the COI, NPOV and SELFPUB tags being removed, without significant changes in the article to justify removal. Example: I suggested a positive addition, covering “ceph”, but did not know of sources for it.

Scjessey is much more than a “satisfied customer.” Without listing details, several different editors have said his editing at DreamHost appears biased by pro-DreamHost COI. Also, he is creator of an off-wiki web site intended to influence or discourage participation, including at Wikipedia, by “outing” personal information and user name(s). This information was provided privately to Philknight and is available privately on request.

Civility: No question Scjessey regularly “welcomed” new editors at DreamHost with prompt, un-discussed edit reverts and accusations of bad faith. The recent Restrictions as a result of his participation in the Obama articles seems to confirm that problems at DreamHost are not an isolated incident. In my opinion, his talk page activity appears largely argumentative and drives away other editors, rather than working to compromise or consensus. I think 194x got off to a “bad” start on this article because s/he stepped into a bad atmosphere, and the Talk page was soon also semi-blocked as a result, forcing him to register. On the whole I think s/he's been a somewhat moderating influence at DreamHost. I try to take SarekOfVulcan 's involvement with good faith, but I will say he does sometimes seem to use Admin power to excess, to force his desired outcome. His apparent attempts at humor sometimes work, but sometimes inflame or derail discussions. Judas278 (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Responses

  • Response to SarekOfVulcan adding Theserialcomma: A voice of reason, from whom I learned to improve my interpretations of policies and guidelines. Was it simply disagreement over an edit, or a suggestion causing the addition?
  • Response to Jehochman talk page: Is it necessary to cast aspersions and doubts? I have listened to advice from other impartial editors, and modified my actions because of it.
Response to initiator/admin SarekOfVulcan

I await direction or questions from Arbitrators or impartial authorities. I thought this was the place for briefly determining a need for a case, not for arguing the case or "Long, rambling additions." Judas278 (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Scjessey

Although still somewhat bruised from my previous encounter with ArbCom, I would be delighted to see the committee accept this case. Broadly-speaking, I concur with the statement made by SarekOfVulcan. DreamHost has very few regular editors, which makes it easy for one or two individuals to disrupt the editing environment - the lack of participants also makes it easy for editors to make ownership claims. Of particular concern, however, is the behavior of a disgruntled ex-customer who has essentially destroyed a peaceful and productive editing atmosphere by attacking the subject, and then the editors, of this article.

Attempts to improve the article are constantly obstructed (again, fairly easy to do with so few editors to help establish consensus) and advice gained from informal mediation, requests for comment and third opinions is essentially being ignored. Suggestions for article improvement are quashed with claims of "advertising" or protracted meta discussion.

It is my hope that rather than taking punitive measures, ArbCom will instead focus on offering guidance to all involved parties (both named and otherwise) as to how to resolve conflict and return to productive editing. I also hope that this might lead to a wider discussion of the problems associated with single-purpose accounts, as I have found that these are a frequent source of disruption across much of Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Update following comments from Arbitrators

I find myself in broad agreement with statements made by arbitrators John Vandenberg and Vassyana. Until John mentioned it, I wasn't even aware of the Content Noticeboard. It seems logical to try to resolve content-related matters there before imposing on ArbCom. Likewise, the matters concerning editor behavior have really evolved from the perception that several parties have some sort of conflict of interest - something which should be resolved at the COI Noticeboard. I'd be more than happy to give those avenues a try, particularly because they would attract the welcome attention of uninvolved administrators. Even if that proves unsuccessful, the least it would do would be to help parties collect their thoughts/evidence, and provide arbitrators with additional material to help with their deliberations. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by 194x144x90x118

Let me start by saying that I've acctually only ONCE! edited the article and cosidering that I can not see how I've been responsible for the "the article being fully protected for most of the past two months" let me continue by stating that I have not treated all positive information about the company as advertisements Line 930 the third edit.

Let me also state that I OBJECT! to the autoarchiving bot being abused The bots page the text that appears on it: "NOTE: Before setting up automatic archiving on an article's talk page, please establish a consensus that archiving is really needed there." . Bottom line, Don't use the bot unless you first establish a consensus. The acts of Sarekofvulcan and Scjessey were nothing less than gross abuse of the bot repeatedly changing its settings without first respecting the requirement that a consensus needed to be obtained. Something which can be compared to impaling someone with a white flag.

Now lets address the players involved

Theserialcomma

I fail to see how this user has possibly done anything wrong.

Judas

Scjesseys and Sareks complaint in the past regarding this user is that he is an SPA but only being an SPA isn't an offense according to wikipedias rules.

Scjessey

Lets begin with viewing other peoples complaints regarding this user from his very own talkpage:

1!!! Complaint and "I will NEVER make any more donations like I have in the past." by User:Carterwj.

2!!! Complaint regarding personal attacks made by Scjessey, by User:Caspian blue.
3!!! Complaint regarding civility made by User:Bigtimepeace
4!!! Complaint from me regarding repeated personal attacks on the dreamhost talkpage.
5!!! Scjessey calling someone a "worthless coward".

Now lets take a look at the Dreamhost talkpage shall we?

1!!! Scjessey threatening violence or making an inappropriate joke "I swear I'm going to metaphorically snap that limb off and bash somebody over the head with it"
11:06, 11 March 2009 Innapropriate sock claims "I believe the disgruntled drive-by tagger is probably a sock, since the account has a single purpose with a limited history, yet seems able to wikilawyer adeptly."
00:27, 3 April Personal attack by Scjessey "Have you no interested in edititing anything else on Wikipeda, other than this crusade of hate?"
16:31, 4 April 2009 Personal attack by Scjessey "Why don't you go and learn the rules and then come back and try to be a productive Wikipedian, rather than a disruptive SPA?"
20:31, 5 April 2009 "You are being deliberately obtuse and tendentious because you have a grudge against the company. It is a complete waste of time trying to discuss this with you, because you have the red mist of DreamHost rage in your eyes" Personal attack by Scjessey.
01:02, 7 April 2009 Scjessey personal attack "You don't make good faith edits. All your edits are in bad faith, because your sole reason for editing here is to discredit DreamHost"
01:58, 7 April 2009 "Wikipedia is not your personal playground of hate."
02:29, 9 April 2009 "Also, since you are just a DreamHost-hating SPA, your "challenge" is essentially meaningless."
02:04, 4 May 2009 Personal attack by Scjessey "Sometimes the senseless outnumber the sensible - that's probably how Bush managed to twice get elected."
02:30, 4 May 2009 "I regard you very much as part of a coalition of the foolish,"
03:59, 20 April 2009 Personal attacks "You are way off base here. Your edits have the sole effect of attacking the company, whereas my edits are for the benefit of the Wikipedia project. It doesn't take a genius to figure out who has the conflict of interest."
04:14, 20 April 2009 Threats and personal attacks "If this were any other article I edit on, you would have been blocked long ago for being a disruptive SPA. You have escaped this long only because this is a low-trafficked, low-importance article. Now please stop your misrepresentations."
21:01, 27 May 2009 Personal attacks "If the banhammer doesn't fall upon you, I will simply be ignoring you from now on."

I'd dig up the diffs and show them to you guys but I just don't have more time today and besides all of this can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DreamHost&oldid=299280215

Scjessey continued

1!!! As this link will show Scjessey has been editing this article disruptively for the past 20! Months or longer.
I'd also like to ask you to take a look at THIS!!! link but it proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that Scjessey tried to recruite Meatpuppets to change an AFD.
And HERE! we have a complaint from a user JavierMC regarding Scjessey and article ownership.

I ask: Is it fair to Wikipedia users that we wait another 20 months for these matters to be reviewed? --194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sjakkalle

Although my (brief) experience with 194x144x90x118 was not related to the DreamHost dispute, I think consideration of 194x144x90x118's conduct in general is in order. A couple of weeks ago he launched a series of personal attacks (e.g. [30])) and intimidation (e.g. [31]) against editors at the chess WikiProject during a content dispute, and the presence of this arbcom request also involving possible disruptive editing from 194x144x90x118 is an indication that this editor's behavior in general may require further scrutiny, possibly sanctions. I don't know about the other editors listed in the request, so I shall not comment on them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Procedural comment by uninvolved user Arakunem

Please note that a discussion has opened on this subject at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#DreamHost, where much of the potential case discussion and evidence is being discussed. I would encourage a final decision as to acceptance or rejection of this Arbitration request be made quickly, so discussion may proceed in the appropriate venue, rather than divided amongst several locations. ArakunemTalk 15:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dtobias

I have the distinction of being the one who started the Dreamhost article, years ago, but have not been a significant participant in recent editing, commenting, and squabbling regarding the article. I am a Dreamhost customer, so if that status is ultimately adjudged to be a conflict of interest I'll comply with any conditions placed on editing. I fail to understand what's so important that everybody is fighting so heatedly about it... "Can't we all just get along?" *Dan T.* (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

I'm waiting on direction from the arbitrators about opening this, as we're still missing some statements and three arbitrators still appear to be on the fence for this issue. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 21:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Please hold on for now. I think a couple of us are waiting to see what might happen over the next couple of days. At the moment the case has fallen below "net 4" anyway, but that might change again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

All users posting here should be aware that personal attacks will not be tolerated here and will be summarily removed by clerks or arbitrators on sight. RFAR has enough drama associated with it already without people insulting one another. Please maintain a basic level of civility and decorum, as you would anywhere else on Wikipedia. Thank you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (8/6/0/0)

  • Accept to consider the conduct of everyone involved in this matter. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline There is an AFD outstanding, and an informal mediation that is said to be ongoing. Wait for the AFD to close, and then attempt to use formal mediation. You may also want to try the new Wikipedia:Content noticeboard out. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Awaiting further submissions. I would like to see the AfD to close as well before determining next steps. John Vandenberg's suggestions for alternatives are good. I'm of the impression, however, that this is a content dispute that still has some opportunity for resolution. Risker (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline at this time, in agreement with Vassyana. I recommend that the editors involved make use of the Content noticeboard and take other steps. Consider requests for comment and posting at business-related wikiproject talk pages seeking other opinions. This does not appear to be ripe for arbitration yet, and I would like to see more community involvement tried first. I do urge all involved editors to remain open-minded in reviewing other options here; whether or not one is a "satisfied customer" should be irrelevant to one's edits. Risker (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept to look at the user conduct issues. The Afd's closed one way or the other is not going to fix the problems that I see looking through editing history of some of the involved parties. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Awaiting further statements, including the other named parties' views on whether they see a path to resolving their dispute here short of arbitration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Accept. Frankly, this is not the sort of dispute that should require the high artillery of arbitration, but nothing else is working (and frankly when ADHD closes we'll have no cases pending, so it's not as if we are overloaded at the moment). This case should progress quickly through the evidence stage and to a proposed decision after the one-week evidence period so that we do not artifically protract a relatively confined dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Waiting for other statements. If other parties are willing to seek dispute resolution then it could be declined. if not it should be accepted. We'll see. Wizardman 23:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Change to accept. Wizardman 20:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept; regardless of the AfD results, some poor behavior has occurred around this topic that bear looking into. — Coren (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept - AfD now closed as 'keep', conduct needs review. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept:  Roger Davies talk 03:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline. There are other avenues of dispute resolution left available. As an example noted by Jehochman, there are noticeboards suitable for handling and clarifying aspects of this situation. I'm also inclined to believe that an uninvolved administrator or two can be found to address any remaining concerns. I am open to being convinced that arbitration is necessary here, but I am skeptical to the notion that this dispute cannot be resolved at the community level. ArbCom should not preempt or supplant the community. On a broader note, the community should take note of this dispute. It is repeated throughout a significant portion of our company articles. Noticeboards discussions and other outside input from the community constitute a necessary step in clarifying policy in relation to those areas and (thus) better addressing these disputes. It is infinitely better for the community to establish this context and application. --Vassyana (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Updated comment. While a better picture of the dispute has been laid out in the expanded comments, no pressing reason is provided to accept this request. That is, this still seems within the community's reach to resolve. --Vassyana (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Reject at this time. Behavioural issues seem low-level and not beyond ordinary administrator intervention, if any is warranted. The content dispute is the core of this, and there are further dispute resolution options to pursue in relation to that, particularly ones that involve seeking outside opinion (this is especially true if party-internal methods such as mediation are not being productive). The request for comment linked to above seemed to attract only two uninvolved users; consider contacting a relevant WikiProject or advertising a request at a relevant noticeboard (though keeping relevant guidelines in mind). --bainer (talk) 05:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept to look at behavior of parties, not content of article. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline - this is borderline, but the conduct and content issues can be handled by the community, with a bit more work. If that fails, please return here for arbitration, but all parties should be aware that poor conduct on both sides will likely be sanctioned, so it would be best for all concerned if they worked together to resolve this. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline - this is not something the community can't fix. Also, Judas278 has just went retired so opening a case would be moot. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Requests for clarification

Use this section to request further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

How to file a request (please use this format!):

  1. Go to this request template, and copy the text in the box at the bottom of the page.
  2. Click here to edit the clarification subpage, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests.
  3. Using the format provided by the template, try to state your request and reasoning in 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. Although it should be kept short, you may add to your statement in future if needed as the word limit is not rigidly enforced. List any other users affected or involved. Sign your statement with ~~~~.
  4. If your request will affect or involve other users, you must notify each involved person on their user talk page. Return to your request and provide diffs showing that other involved users have been notified in the section provided for notification.

This is not a page for discussion.

  • It may be to your advantage to paste the template into your user space or use an off-line text editor to compose your request before posting it here. The main Requests for arbitration page is not the place to work on rough drafts.
  • Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
  • Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee.
  • Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one.

Request for clarification: Ryulong (2)

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

Statement by Mythdon

I have additional questions regarding my mentorship ruling.

In regards to term A, it says:

Mythdon is urged to find a mentor within a month of the closure of this case, and is free to get a mentor of his/her choice. Mythdon is directed to inform the Committee once the mentor is selected. In case no mentor is found within 1 month, Mythdon will be assigned a mentor by ArbCom;

In the recently closed Mattisse case, there is ruling of mentorship there as well stating that Matissee shall be assigned mentors by the committee within 15 days of that decision. But, also, unlike mine, there is a ruling here that directs Mattisse not to edit Wikipedia if the "plan" is not accomplished within the 15 day period without Committee permission. Because of that, I have this question; Since my month long time limit to find a mentor is up (it's been up since approximately June 24), am I prohibited from editing Wikipedia at all until the appointment or am I just prohibited from making edits that require the mentor approval?

In regards to term B, it says:

Mythdon should consult and take guidance from the mentor when issues arise concerning their editing or behavior. Inability to work constructively with a mentor may be a sign that a user has continued difficulty in collaborative editing and that stronger sanctions are required; successful editing during the mentorship may demonstrate that the opposite is true;

I am having a hard time understanding the beginning sentence of that term "Mythdon should consult and take guidance from the mentor when issues arise concerning their editing or behavior". I do not know what is being meant by "consult". Does it mean "consult your mentor when you're unsure of whether an edit is legitimate?" - My suspicion is "yes".

Since I'm not 100% sure as of this moment, I need further clarification on this case ruling. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Recused from the underlying case (albeit not for reasons relating to Mythdon), so I'll leave it to someone else to answer Mythdon's questions. But if I may make a suggestion, would a non-recused arbitrator volunteer to communicate directly with Mythdon to address these issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In lieu of a motion or indication to the contrary, I would expect you to be free to edit for the time being. However, I would recommend staying as far away from controversy as possible and walking away if you find yourself in a conflict. That said, I have a couple of questions. Why have you not acquired a mentor? Have you had difficulty finding someone to agree? Were you unsure of where to look or how to approach the matter? On another aspect, what areas do you feel you need the most guidance in? What sort of advice would be most helpful for you? Answering these questions will help us move forward from this point and arrange a mentoring relationship for you. --Vassyana (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

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

Statement by Sandstein

This request arises from Radeksz's currently unresolved appeal, at WP:AE#Appeal against discretionary sanctions by Radeksz, against discretionary sanctions imposed against him by Thatcher. Inter alia, Radeksz argues that the sanctions are inadmissible because he did not receive a prior warning about possible sanctions. The reviewing administrators (including arbitrator Kirill) disagree about the application of the pertinent clause of the relevant remedy:

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

—Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions

I ask the Committee to clarify the following:

  1. Must this warning be given by an uninvolved editor or administrator? (This issue came up recently in another AE case.) (Question struck, sorry, the remedy says clearly that it must be an uninvolved administrator.  Sandstein  15:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC))
  2. Must this warning be given anew tailored specifically to every incident of disruption for which sanctions are considered, or is one generic warning (to make the editor aware of the decision) sufficient in cases where the counseling provided for by the remedy is not deemed to be necessary?
  3. If generic warnings are sufficient, is a generic warning still necessary if the editor at issue is already known to be aware of the decision for other reasons, e.g. through participation in an arbitration enforcement request discussion concerning the same case?
  4. If generic warnings are sufficient, is a generic warning posted at the top of a discussion page (such as an article talk page) or in the course of a discussion sufficient, or must the warning be provided individually on user talk pages?

Thanks,  Sandstein  13:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Note to Piotrus: This request is not intended to address the merits of Radeksz's conduct or sanctions. I am only requesting the clarification of the issues raised above, which are relevant beyond the specific case. That specific case is currently still pending at AE and will be decided there, unless the Committee decides to hear the appeal itself.  Sandstein  16:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Additional comment: Although Thatcher has – in unfortunately understandable frustration – now lifted the sanctions that caused the discussion that led to this request, I believe that a clarification of the points listed above remains desirable for future cases.  Sandstein  11:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Reply to GRBerry: Thanks, that's pretty much what I would have thought, too. Sorry, only upon reading your answer did I notice that the remedy is actually pretty clear about who has to issue the warning.  Sandstein  15:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher

For my views on Radek, see my comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Appeal_against_discretionary_sanctions_by_Radeksz. Thatcher 14:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  • You know, if you really want to micro-manage this thing, then all the warnings logged between July 28, 2008 and June 23, 2009 are invalid. The original case remedy #11 General restriction only dealt with "edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith", and the warning template (which I wrote) quoted the decision. On July 28 2008 the General Restriction was replaced with Remedy #12, Discretionary sanctions which are quite broad, and yet no one updated the warning template. So for the past year, editors have been warned about incivility when they were in fact subject to sanction for a much broader range of problems. Thatcher 14:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object to Kirill's characterization of my imposition of the 1RR restriction as expedient, and his characterization of the notification requirement as doing the paperwork seriously deprecates the Committee's finding of persistent and long term misconduct in this topic area. There is clear and convincing evidence that these editors have been engaged in edit warring for a long time. Did Kirill review User:Shell Kinney/EEreportsreview before he decided that I was being "expedient"? I thoroughly checked the editors for prior involvement in complaints or Enforcement requests that would demonstrate prior knowledge of the case and its remedies. Or, as an experiment, type the name of any editor I sanctioned in the Admin noticeboard search box. Here, I'll make it easy for you.



The idea that these editors were not aware that this was a disputed topic under prior Arbcom sanction is ludicrous, and the idea that each editor needs to be personally warned that his own conduct is of concern plays directly to the argument of (nearly) every editor involved that all the editing problems are someone else's fault. I hope I may be forgiven for saying that these editors are some of the biggest crybabies I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. You'd think I was holding their sainted grandmothers hostage in my basement, rather than impose a simple requirement that they not revert each other, and discuss their reverts. I have seen very little acknowledgment of personal responsibility for any part of this dispute, it's all someone else's fault, and now I see Biophys arguing against the very concept of a 1RR restriction (good luck with that).

No one has yet explained how Wikipedia will be a better encyclopedia with the restrictions lifted. However, 13,000 words spent in arguing against an editing restriction imposed as a result of a revert war over the addition of a 2-word category is clearly detrimental. In the interests of paperwork and eschewing expediency, I have vacated my prior findings. Be well, do good works, and keep in touch. Thatcher 11:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Skapperod

According to the Strict construction of Remedy 12 it requires "a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator", but it does not require a specific wording and does not specify the place the warning must occur. Therefore, a warning given on an article talk page or one of the admins' noticeboards would be, according to the paperwork, just as good. I wrote the template {{Digwuren enforcement}} to make it easier to give warnings, but other forms of warnings would be acceptable. There is no formal requirement to log the warning in remedy 12, but it is the only practical way to handle enforcement. Without an easy-to-search list, admins will find it practically impossible to know whether an editor has been previously warned by some other admin. In future Enforcement requests, if you know that an editor has been warned but that warning is not logged, you can provide a diff to the warning in your complaint. Thatcher 12:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Skap, the bottom line is that there was no record of any warning, formal or informal, user talk or noticeboard, and no links to warnings by uninvolved admins were provided in the complaint. Therefore, the paperwork was not completed properly. Now it is. Thatcher 14:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Igny

Igny's assumptions about me are amusing. In point of fact, I vacated the 1RR restriction because first Kirill, and now Stephen Bain, have taken the view that a formal notification on the user's talk page is required, even if the user is demonstrably aware of the Arbitration case and the remedies involved. From looking at User:Shell Kinney/EEreportsreview and the noticeboard and Enforcement archives, it is clear that this "mob" as you say, has been active for a long time, and it is puzzle that no prior admin ever put them on formal notice. But there it is. Thatcher 19:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Followup to Carcharoth

Although I feel we have reached the point of diminishing returns, I think I should point out that GRBerry and Bainer, whom who both agree with, have diametrically opposed views on Sandstein's question #3. Thatcher 00:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Offliner

Please also clarify the following:

  1. What exactly is the purpose of such a warning?
  2. What exactly should the form of such a warning be? Please be very clear about which form is sufficient and which is not.
  3. If sanctions have been placed without such a proper warning, should the sanctions be lifted?

Please make this as clear as possible. For example, prior to his sanctions, Radeksz was clearly aware of the Digwuren case as demonstrated by Thatcher. He was also warned for other things, such as edit warring. Does this constitute such a proper warning or not? Offliner (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Loosmark

IMO the remedy is crystal clear and so is what Kirill wrote. Radeksz was clearly never given a warning on his talk page at any point as the remedy requares therefore i don't understand why is Sandstein trying to create confusion. If we accept this bizzare logic that some editor "might have been aware of the warning" then we will end up arguing each and every time whether this was really so. I believe the ArbCom formulated the remedy that way exactly to prevent any ambiguities. Loosmark (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Biophys

There are several general questions that should be clarified by Arbcom to help administrators at AE:

  1. Can the sanctions be issued without the warning or without giving a possibility to improve?. According to Digwuren case, "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict ... if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia...". That means a warning logged in the case, exactly as Thatcher said [32]. That is why Thatcher rushed to issue such warnings to everyone (but forget Radek), and then immediately issued editing restrictions. The warning is not a "formality" because a user may be unaware that his specific actions (such as rare reverts in Nashi) are subject to the sanctions. After looking at the text of Arbcom decision, I honestly believed that I am only a subject to an official EE warning (but not to immediate sanctions) if my behavior was problematic, and everyone probably thought the same. Once receiving the proper warning, one could stop editing in this area or change his editing habits. However, the sanctions and the official warnings were issued at the same time, without giving users a possibility to improve, which goes against the letter and the spirit of discretionary sanctions. This matter was first brought to AE by Brandmaster: [33].
  2. Russia does not belong to Eastern Europe; this is mostly Asia. Would any purely Russian/Soviet subjects (like article Nashi) fall under these sanctions? For example, List_of_Soviet_agents_in_the_United_States?Biophys (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Can sanctions for edit warring be issued to users who follow 1RR rule?. We need some safeguards here. The 1RR restriction was issued for article "Nashi", although some of the editors (including me and Radek) actually followed 1RR restriction while editing this article. Seriously, I am now afraid to make any edits, because any serious correction can be viewed as a revert. I am also afraid to make any two non-sequential corrections in the same article during a week, because this can be viewed as a 1RR violation.
  4. Can an argument about "tag-teams" be ever used to issue the sanctions? Thatcher used an argument about the "tag-teaming". But this is a controversial concept, and it has been de facto rejected by ArbCom during last EE case, although many users tried to bring it there. Indeed, it is very common that several users revert someone else who fight against consensus. Does it mean tag-teaming?

No one suggests to reconsider all AE cases. However, some clarity maybe helpful for the future. Biophys (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus

IMHO the crucial issue here is that Radek was restricted for doing 3 reverts (with edits summaries) in two weeks - in other words for being guilty of respecting all of our policies!

Not warning him first is just adding insult to the injury here... but it is an important issue as well. It is my understanding that warnings serve the preventative function, aiming at reforming a user; restrictions are punitive, aiming at stopping disruptive users who have not heeded warnings. Any user who is not clearly a vandal, per AGF, should be given a warning first, and only if he refuses to change, should than be restricted. Such a warning should also be given on his/her talkpage, since we cannot assume that editors will read the entire talk pages (or even AE or such threads) for all tiny warnings/exceptions/caveats/etc.

Radek, an experienced and constructive user, has followed all of our policies. Advice to use talk pages more often would be enough, particularly as he has shown much willingness to improve his (already within our standards) editing behavior. Yet he was suddenly and without a warning slapped down with 1RR restriction (which he followed on the article in question anyway...), for having the misfortune of editing an article outside his usual interests. This sends a really unhelpful message to all other neutral editors who could help improve the EE articles... "Come, edit those articles and get restricted without a warning for following normal policies anyway" :(

Bottom line is, if the ArbCom endorses sanction on Radek, it will mean that from now on anybody who does (or has ever done) more than one revert on any article in EE subjects, at any time, can be subject to a major 1RR editing restriction (if we restrict a user for 3 reverts in 2 weeks, why not 2 reverts in 3 weeks - or 5 weeks - and so goes the slippery slope...).

(PS. I do support all other recent restrictions by Thatcher, this one seems an unfortunate collateral damage casualty - so I'd strongly oppose initiating any kind of wider review which could undue most of the recent 1RR restrictions, which did indeed bring peace to affected articles - most of whom Radek never even edited...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Radeksz

While I understand that in filing this request for clarification Sandstein's purpose is to clarify a particular aspect of policy and procedure, I do want it noted, per Piotrus, that the fact that proper procedure was not followed is only one of my arguments. There are also others.

However, sticking to the narrow purpose of this request I think it's pretty clear from the text and the past interpretation of the case that the purpose of the warning is not to make an editor aware of the existence of the Digwuren case, but rather, in the language of the case so that the editor has a chance to take "specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines" - in other words to make the editor aware that their editing behavior may be problematic. I think this is precisely in there for border line case such as mine - where, since I was following 1RR/Week I really had no idea that I was breaking any kind of rules (as I've said before, this is the first time I've seen anyone get slapped with an accusation of "edit warring" and sanctions in the case of 1 revert per week). I'm also not arguing that a formal warning must be made in each instance - just that there needs to be AT LEAST ONE formal warning.

In light of the above I would also like a clarification on how exactly is the 1RR/Week restriction to be properly interpreted. If following 1RR/Week can get you restricted for edit warring, can reverting vandalisms get counted as a revert and lead to a ban? Of course I know there are clear cut cases, but what about something like this: [34]. I saw it yesterday, thought about reverting it since it looks like vandalism to me ... then thought better of it "just in case". There was no curse words in there, it was sort of on topic, no usual flags of typical vandalism - what if I reverted it and then some administrator decided that that was a violation of a 1RR restriction? And that's part of the trouble here - these kinds of harsh punishments for minor infractions, filed without proper procedures (even IF these procedures require some time to follow) create an atmosphere of paranoia (not to mention disillusionment and frustration) and hurt the regular work that editors do on these pages.radek (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Question for GRBerry

an involved editor on the other side of a dispute - can you clarify what you mean by "other side of dispute"? Does this mean a dispute on a particular article? Does it mean a current dispute or one in recent past? How narrowly is this defined? The wording in the case leaves this open to interpretation and there's been some controversy stemming from that ambiguity as a result.radek (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Skäpperöd

Formal notice and Digwuren list

The remedy does not require an administrator to place a formal notice on the editor's talk page, as was the case with superceded remedy 11. It only reads "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator" Yet, the formal notice reads that it is not effective unless logged at the Digwuren list. The list is titled: "List of editors placed under editing restriction", and the instruction for administrators below the title reads: "List here editors who have been placed on editing restriction by notice on their talk page, per remedy 11..."

It is not the active remedy (12) which requires a logged formal notice at the editors talk page, but remedy 11 which is superceded. Remedy 12 requires a warning that is only specified as linking the remedy by an uninvolved administrator, and optional counseling.

  • Why does the Digwuren list read "per remedy 11" and is still maintained?
  • Why does it list people not subject to an editing restriction, but who only received an adapted formal notice stemming from superceded remedy 11? I have no problem with being formally notified and listed somewhere as such, but I do have a problem with being listed as an editor under editing restrictions when in fact I am not subject to any.
  • Why does the formal notice template generate a header "Notice of editing restrictions" if no editing restrictions are issued, and requires logging at the Digwuren list to be effective?

Skäpperöd (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Thatcher's reply to Skäpperöd

Exactly. I am not arguing against the formal notice itself and against a logging, how else would admins be able to keep up with who they warned, just that notice and list are maintained under the label "editing restrictions". I fully share your interpretation that a formal warning is not needed, and that there is no need for any additional warning if awareness of the remedy is evident. I had made that clear on your talk already, and my argumentation above was rather to point out that the whole "formal notice" concept in its current form is a remnant of a meanwhile non-existing remedy and must not be mistaken as a formal requirement. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry

Sandstein posed four questions (in italics here), here is my understanding of the proper answers to them from the period when I was active at Arbitration Enforcement. These answers apply to all cases where discretionary sanctions are in force, not merely to this specific case.

1. Must this warning be given by an uninvolved editor or administrator? (This issue came up recently in another AE case.)
It is best if it is given by an uninvolved administrator. Administrators who are working enforcement for the case are uninvolved. It is worst if it is given by an involved editor on the other side of a dispute. However, the fundamental purpose of the warning is met no matter who gives it.
2. Must this warning be given anew tailored specifically to every incident of disruption for which sanctions are considered, or is one generic warning (to make the editor aware of the decision) sufficient in cases where the counseling provided for by the remedy is not deemed to be necessary?
Absolutely not. The discretionary sanctions exist because editors in the topic area have such a problematic history that they are skating on thin ice. They don't get guaranteed Nth chances, the first warning tells them that they cannot expect as much leniency as they would get elsewhere. If an admin working enforcement believes that counsel will work better than a sanction, the admin will use counsel.
It has also long been understood that anyone that was a party to the case is already warned by the case closing message simply from having been a party and no further warnings are required for case parties. This precedent establishes that individual incident warnings are not required.
3. If generic warnings are sufficient, is a generic warning still necessary if the editor at issue is already known to be aware of the decision for other reasons, e.g. through participation in an arbitration enforcement request discussion concerning the same case?
No. (Especially not for someone saying that another editor should be sanctioned under the case.) Such an editor has demonstrated awareness of the special rules and need to demonstrate the best possible behavior, a formal warning would not be of benefit to them. A logged warning may be of benefit at a later date so that it is obvious that they are aware, but that benefit comes from the logging and accrues to an admin enforcing the case, not to the editor warned because they gained no new knowledge from the warning.
4. If generic warnings are sufficient, is a generic warning posted at the top of a discussion page (such as an article talk page) or in the course of a discussion sufficient, or must the warning be provided individually on user talk pages?
I don't like the idea of a notice at the top of a talk page; the one situation I was involved in where that was tried didn't work very well, but that was also trying a non-standard approach in an extreme battleground area, and I'm not certain which, if any, non-standard feature caused it to work poorly - it might have been the particular editors instead, as I know it the approach and talk page message worked fine in a different topic area.
In general the question is whether an editor is aware of the special conditions and need to be on the best possible behavior. This can be presumed to be the case if the warning was posted to their talk page. This really can't be presumed for a warning on a talk page or in the midst of a discussion; we all engage in tl;dr at times. Talk pages, especially on disputed topics, can have screens of templates at the top that we just scroll by without reading. And a comment in the middle of a discussion may not be noticed, especially if the discussion is fast moving, as is common for disputed topics. So user talk page warnings are far more likely to be seen by the editor and thus generate the required notice - but this remains irrelevant for an editor that is demonstrably aware of the data that a warning would provide. GRBerry 14:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Igny

Despite the fact that I was affected by this restriction, I am actually saddened that Thatcher gave in to the pressure and vacated the restrictions from this particular bunch of editors (yes, including radek and even me). With all due respect to Thatcher, I think he lacks teaching experience to deal with a bunch of editors upset by the punishment. From my teaching experience, I always expect students who are upset by the grades they receive and who claim unfair punishment and who demand, often without a compelling reason, a better grade or something. In fact, if I teach a big course, I expect to be flooded by those demands.

It is an absolute rule for a teacher not to give in to such demands (unless there are really really really exceptional circumstances), any exception from such a rule may have severe consequences and undermine the authority of the teacher. Next time, expect even bigger outcries from the punished editors who will cite plenty of different reasons and precedents, including the precedent of this case.

Thatcher mentioned the tens of thousands of words spent on this simple case, but that was to be expected when you deal with what essentially is a mob. Despite what individual editors may claim or feel, the tag teaming does indeed take place in Wikipedia on many controversial topics. It is hard to judge individual contribution to the tag teaming, or determine guilt of any particular participant without doubt. That is why I was actually glad with Thatcher's decision to punish all the involved editors and thought that finally someone decided to do something about the problem. That is extremely unfortunate that under the pressure of the mob the decision was overturned. (Igny (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Like the purpose of warnings under general policy, the purpose of warnings here, in relation to the discretionary sanctions, is twofold. Obviously the primary purpose is to ensure that editors are aware of the existence of the discretionary sanctions before they can be made subject to them. This is particularly important in this case because the discretionary sanctions were not part of the original decision. The secondary purpose is so that editors know that their behaviour is being scrutinised and that they personally may be subject to sanctions, to allow them an opportunity to modify their behaviour. That the remedy comprehends this purpose too is apparent from the mention of counselling editors in addition to warning them, and from the list of factors in the third paragraph.
To answer Sandstein's three remaining questions:
  1. The minimum that is required is that the editor is provided with a link to the discretionary sanctions section within the final decision, as the remedy states. Once an editor has been warned of the existence of the discretionary sanctions, they do not need to be warned again (though editors who were only ever warned of the existence of the original general restriction would have to be warned of the discretionary sanctions).
  2. The terms of the remedy say fairly plainly that a warning is required. I would agree that if someone has been commenting in arbitration enforcement threads concerning the discretionary sanctions they can be taken to be aware of them, but the second purpose remains.
  3. A talk page banner is not sufficient, no. A message on the user's talk page is the best method.
--bainer (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - agree with GRBerry and bainer here. Having said that, I do have a great deal of sympathy for admins who work in the area of arbitration enforcement. There were movements afoot to reform this area, including a request for comments held earlier this year (WP:AERFC). If proposals made there would improve things, no-one should be shy of attempting to implement any needed reform, and asking for guidance if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank-you , Thatcher, for pointing out that point about Sandstein's question 3. My view is that it depends on the case and editor in question, but user talk page messages are nearly always best to avoid any potential confusion or defence. It might seem like paperwork, but leaving a user talk page message ultimately reduces paperwork (and discussions like these) later. Carcharoth (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

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

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

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

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

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

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

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

Obviously, clear pseudoscience exists where one or two supporters could be considered (broadly) part of the scientific community. For instance, Michael Behe is a university professor in biology, and a supporter of intelligent design, which huge numbers of sources confirm to be pseudoscience. His colleagues have even put up a webpage on the university server ([35]) stating that intelligent design "should not be considered scientific". A little clarification here would prevent wikilawyering. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Seddon

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

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

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

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment - I've always been uneasy about the practice of quoting ArbCom principles in policies, especially very old principles. Either quote the arbitration case accurately, or don't quote it at all. If the wording from the arbitration case is insufficient, then remove it and use a wording agreed upon by consensus on the policy talk page. But please don't ask ArbCom to participate (from RFAR) in the editing of policy, especially not one as key as neutral point of view. Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. The community has long ago taken ownership of that language by integrating it into policy. Any modifications thereof should be handled through the community in the form of normal policy discussion and editing. --Vassyana (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • There are several paragraphs of the Pseudoscience decision that venture more closely to content or policy rulings than would normally be found in one of our decisions. The case was decided in 2006, and not a single arbitrator who participated in the case is still serving on the committee, so it would be more than a little artificial for us to purport to "clarify" the principle in question. Therefore, on the substance of the matter, I agree with Vassyana and Carcharoth. But I also suggest that the former arbitrator who wrote the decision should be contacted, if he hasn't been already, and asked for his view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

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

Statement by Wikidemon

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

My understanding is no. I supported the remedies in question on the hope and assumption they would put an end to accusations of bad faith made against me for months on end concerning my work on Obama-related articles, an issue close to the core of the case. I follow that by not mentioning them by name or deed, and by avoiding if I can any page or procedure where they are active. I make a reluctant exception here, because I have been accused of bad faith, trolling, and stalking[36][37][38][39] four times in the last day. This troubles me, and I wish it would stop. I am therefore asking a clarification on whether these accusations are prohibited, or whether I should just try to ignore them. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Statement by Bigtimepeace

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

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

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

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

Statement by Scjessey

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

Statement by ChildofMidnight

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

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

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

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

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

<The comment below was a reply in a threaded discussion that was moved here by a clerk. I've collapsed it because it's only tangentially, at best, related to this proceeding>
  • The idea that Bigtimepeace thinks he's an appropriate person to enforce these arbcom remedies is SHOCKING. He is absolutely not neutral and certainly not uninvolved. He's been very aggressive about stating his politics and coming after editors who disagree with him in thinking we should abide by NPOV and include multiple perspectives in our political coverage. I absolutely 100% reject the idea that he should even consider using his tools in relation to this matter, and he should absolutely refrain from using his tools in regards to Obama related subjects where he's made his personal point of view and his desire to enforce it very clear. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
    • -I was going to post this note on Bigtimepeace's talk page. But I didn't feel comfortable doing that, so I am posting it here instead.-

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

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

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

Statement by Unitanode

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

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

Statement by William M. Connolley

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

As far as I'm concerned, I didn't make a statement, just a minor comment. This was quietly "statementified" later [40] by someone else. I think it would be better if people make a clearly visible mark when they do such things William M. Connolley (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher

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

Statement by Tarc

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

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

Statement by Caspian blue

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

Tarc, yes, you're warned for "your incivility by the ArbCom", period. True, you're one of flocks coming, mocking CoM and enjoying the whole dramas in these days and of the Obama cabal together with CoM. (does not matter what your political view is in the cabal in my view - US politic drama is not my interest). You're no position to say like the above.
To Bigtimepeace, I consider you a fine admin, but you may be the second last person to "enforce the ArbCom remedy" to CoM because even if you were never in "content disputes" with him, you were in "disputes with him" for whatever reason. If CoM violates the ArbCom sanction, clerks, arbitrators or other assigned admins would carry the enforcement to CoM.--Caspian blue 13:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, Tarc's another "falsehood" and inappropriate accusations. ArbCom certainly did not catch your behavior in depth. See your own statement filled with inappropriateness. You said you only made one appearance with regard to CoM's ANI report. (falsehood indeed given these appearances to recent 3 ANI reports) [41][42][43][44][45]--Caspian blue 18:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, Tarc even visited my talk page continuing another "bogus" accusations and attacking me with this "falsefood" again.[46]--Caspian blue 22:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
It is really tiresome. As long as Tarc is continuing his usual way of speaking[47], ArbCom which officially warned him for his "incivility" could reconsider about Tarc, as well as clarifying the original remedy on Wikidemon/Sj/CoM. Tarc browbeaten me that Unfortunately for you, no one else is buying it. Tarc, trust me, you're wrong on that given that originally there was no remedy on Wikidemon vs CoM. So if you want to convince the ArbCom enough to consider a new remedy on you as fanning the situation, I do not mind. However for your own sake, please "disengage" from CoM and your improper behavior. Thanks.--Caspian blue 23:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by BaseballBugs

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

Never mind me. I am impervious to personal attacks. But how long is the community going to let him get away with this kind of soapboxing [48] that's a gross insult to the integrity of everyone else on wikipedia? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by PhGustaf

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

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

Statement by Seicer

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

Statement by Allstarecho

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

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

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

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Requests for amendment

Use this section:
  • To request changes to remedies or enforcement provisions, for example to make them stronger or deal with unforeseen problems.
  • To request lifting of an existing Arbitration sanction that is no longer needed (banned users may email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee directly)

How to file a request (please use this format!):

  1. Go to this request template, and copy the text in the box at the bottom of the page.
  2. Click here to edit the amendment subpage, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests.
  3. Using the format provided by the template, try to show exactly what you want amended and state your reasoning for the change in 1000 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. Although it should be kept short, you may add to your statement in future if needed as the word limit is not rigidly enforced. List any other users affected or involved. Sign your statement with ~~~~.
  4. If your request will affect or involve other users, you must notify each involved person on their user talk page. Return to your request and provide diffs showing that other involved users have been notified in the section provided for notification.

This is not a page for discussion.

  • It may be to your advantage to paste the template into your user space or use an off-line text editor to compose your request before posting it here. The main Requests for arbitration page is not the place to work on rough drafts.
  • Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
  • Requests that do not clearly state the following will be removed by Arbitrators or Clerks without comment:
    1. The name of the case to be amended (which should be linked in the request header),
    2. The clause(s) to be modified, referenced by number or section title as presented in the Final Decision,
    3. The desired modifications to the aforementioned clause(s), and
    4. A rationale for the change(s) of no more than 1000 words.
  • Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee.
  • Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one.

Request to amend prior case: Obama articles

Case affected 
Obama articles arbitration case (t) (ev/ t) (w/ t) (p/ t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Findings 7 through 15
  2. Remedies 4, 5, 10, 10.2
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
  • Username2 (diff of notification of this thread on Username2's talk page)
  • Username3 (repeat above for all parties)

Amendment 1

Statement by Sceptre

The recent passing of remedies in the Obama articles case presents a worrying outlook on how Wikipedia policies and guidelines are enforced, and of the current Committee. There are really several points that need to be made, so forgive me for overstepping the five-hundred word limit:

  • BLP enforcement: the Arbitration Committee has, in past cases (most notably and controversially, Footnoted quotes), held that BLP enforcement should be encouraged and thus editors should be given wide leeway in enforcement. However, the remedies passed make no recognition of BLP enforcement although the findings of fact implied that it was needed. This is related to the following point...
  • Sanctions: the sanctions do not reflect prevention of any problem at all. Were this a case where BLP enforcement was considered, the sanctions would be vastly different, if not one-sided. I have a gut feeling that these sanctions may have been motivated by an effort to avoid the appearance of a "liberal bias". Furthermore, the findings of fact, especially mine, were criticised: the word "fuck" does not an attack make (I refer the ArbCom to George Carlin's infamous routine about the word), and the diffs regarding my reversion of Stevertigo outside of the Obama articles was intended to combat disruption (indeed, one of the two diffs provided shows me reverting an action that the ArbCom mentioned in the previous finding of fact!). This leaves only the edit war. Which I admit, I did get confrontational on that FAQ. However, the remedy for an edit war in aid of BLP enforcement should not be a twelve-month 1RR/week sanction. It should be a simple admin protection. Other remedies for both sides vastly exaggerate the problems in the FoFs, which themselves vastly exaggerate the actions described therein.
  • Restrictiveness: the remedies passed are too restrictive on the parties of the case they are applied too. Again, I'll use myself as an example: as one of the Doctor Who WikiProject's more prolific editors, I find myself editing related articles a lot. And these are verifiably popular articles; the articles Eleventh Doctor and Matt Smith (actor) were in the top two spots of {{Popular articles}} for several hours of 3 January 2009, so, understandably, there's a push-and-shove effort in trying to maintain article quality. In fact, it's not strange for an editor to revert more than three times in 24 hours after an episode airs, but such behaviour isn't met with blocks as it's not edit-warring in the spirit of 3RR. Luckily, this has not affected my editing too much; normally, the end of June comprises the Doctor Who season finale, but this year is a "rest year" for the show and as such all that is happening wrt Doctor Who this summer is the currently airing Torchwood serial Children of Earth, but, come winter, given what we know is going to happen then, it will be an uphill struggle to maintain article quality and normalcy and will need as many hands as possible. Even if I don't take an active role in combatting the inevitable disruption, the ruling would effectively lead me unable to edit the articles properly until several weeks after the episodes air, affecting the usually high turnover rate in article writing (which, for articles about fiction, is a Good Thing). So these sanctions do not prevent disruption; quite the opposite, they make it easier!
  • And finally, communication: the case really highlights the lack of communication between the arbitration committee and other users. Wizardman left only two days between posting on the workshop and on the proposed decision page, and most of us didn't notice until the latter occurred. Even so, the Committee made no visible effort in reading the workshop, the talk pages, or otherwise listening to users, despite the fact there was a considerable opinion by both sides that the proposed decisions were flawed. This is a problem that, while only peripherally relevant to my argument, needs to be countered for the sake of the community.

So, what am I proposing, exactly? Basically, I am requesting:

  • A complete re-examination of the findings of fact and removal of any material which exaggerates or mis-characterises an editor's actions (hence why I've listed all nine editors for which findings were passed, although some may need not be edited).
  • The vacation of any sanctions applied to myself and Scjessey, and the editing of Stevertigo's sanction so that it applies only to Obama articles, not a project-wide restriction (because Steve's really not a bad guy).

Thank you, Sceptre (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Vassanya

You misunderstand my comments to indicate an "willingness to edit war". Edit warring is born from a dispute where a set of editors continually reverting each other where there is a legitimate content dispute. With regard to the Doctor Who articles, this is not the case. The WikiProject has formulated a policy-compliant manual of style and uses that and related policies to maintain article quality. Think: breaking the letter of the 3RR after an episode air is almost never "punished"—except in the case of disputes about non-free images—because it is not edit warring in the strictest sense. There was also no legitimate content dispute regarding the existence—or lack thereof—of a criticism article; as it has been shown, the vast majority of people complaining were single-purpose accounts. Reversions of BLP violating material, which was commonplace in March when the case was open, are explicitly not edit warring as it's not a legitimate content dispute. And reversions of, for example, Stevertigo on WP:IAR or WP:DRV was not edit warring. Why? Again, there was no legitimate content dispute. No person would seriously suggest, for example, that IAR be marked a historical policy, at least without a solid rationale, which Steve lacked by miles. Additionally, the reversion of disruption must never be considered edit-warring, as it sends a negative message to editors that they can gain more from trolling than doing actual work. RickK quit in June 2005 because good editors were given less respect and assitance than those who wanted to disrupt, and it's saddening that four years on, it appears to continue.

Regarding your comment about communication, I fail to see how your description of the process matches up with what actually happened. Of course, in theory, what you say is correct. But I feel there was a lack of communication in practice. On the PD talk page, only one arbitrator of the seventeen we have, John Vandeberg, took an active job in answering most of the questions, and even then little appeared to be done. An example is my objections to remedy #5, which got no reply from an arbitrator on that talk page, despite three weeks elapsing between the question being asked and the closure of the case.

And finally, I must disagree with your comment about the sanctions. As the evidence shows, while not limited the Obama pages, all of the edit warring given derives from the Obama dispute. If there was no Obama dispute, Steve would not have edit-warred on, say, DRV or IAR. It's more that tempers were a bit heated then because of the dispute. Hence why I suggested the restriction on Steve be only on Obama articles; other than the Obama articles, he has not shown a history of continual edit warring (based on the WP:EW-backed description above, rather than the erroneous "reverting is automatically edit-warring" belief, although he was desysopped in 2005 for edit-warring). And it can be shown with most editors for which findings were passed, they have no history of continual edit warring outside the Obama dispute before or after. I was going to suggest a similar change in the restriction for Grundle2600, but his recent topic ban indicates that he does have an edit-warring problem. This appears to be an exaggeration on ArbCom's part, extrapolating a small, limited-time dispute as evidence of a massive behavioural problem and passing according remedies. At the very most, all the arbitration committee needed to do with the editors in this case was to give them an admonishment for misbehaving and warn them not to do it again. If the ArbCom wanted to pass a 1RR/week restriction that didn't look foolish, or at the least, strange, to an outside observer, they should've shown in the findings of fact that there was a sustained problem, with several more diffs (as plenty were offered in evidence). But the findings of fact indicate that, in reality, there is not, and thus the sanctions do no work in preventing disruption of Wikipedia and instead serve to punish editors for a minor offense that would've, under any other circumstances, resulted in just a 24-to-48 hour block or a protection. Sceptre (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Second reply to Vassanya

EW, like other policies, requires application of common sense on top of the letter of the policy. While there are only a few exceptions listed in the letter of the 3RR policy, it does not mean they are the only exceptions. Admins often overlook breaches of the letter of the 3RR if a) the spirit has not been broken (i.e., no harm has come to the wiki or the wiki process), or b) there is no "tangoing". Whether reverts in aid of article maintainance is a violation of the spirit of EW is debatable; while arbitration cases and edit warring reports have indicated that it is, the content assessment process generally takes the view that it is not; or, at the very least, it is not sufficient enough to warrant opposition to a page's asssessment as GA/FA for being unstable. The whole article maintainance argument is peripheral to the main argument, in that, at least in my case, there is only one edit war shown, and any other reverts were performed in aid of combatting disruption to the project. If we are at a stage that reverting disruption is considered edit warring, it presents a very bleak outlook of the Wikipedia community, and it would be unfitting for an arbitrator to hold this belief too. Sceptre (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Wikidemon

I respect the wisdom, hard work, and decisions of the committee, even if I don't fully agree with some parts of the outcome. They say that a good decision leaves everyone a little unsatisfied, so that's probably what's happening here. I'm pretty sure that every finding of fact and every sanction was thought through and made deliberately, so there's no mistake to correct. The case took a lot of time and effort, and the arguments among parties grew unpleasant at times. The outcome includes a couple of no-interaction orders among the parties, which I think have done some good in terms of calming tensions and getting people back to productive work. I don't think those are up for discussion, but opening the case again nevertheless brings us all back to the same page, and brings some potential for renewed friction. The Obama articles have been very quiet since the case was decided, and for the past couple of months overall. So all in all I just don't think it's worth re-opening that proverbial can of worms.

Although I don't want to re-argue the case, I do see the merits of Sceptre's point. A few of the editors on whom revert restrictions were placed have never shown editing problems outside of politics articles, so in their case the restriction would seem to be overbroad. However, in theory that shouldn't be much of a burden because we should all be at 1RR all the time... The arbitration findings deal mostly with the behavior of a small subset of the editors over a short span, four months ago now, and largely gloss over the larger issue of article probation. There seems to be no movement to convene the Obama article probation working group contemplated in the decision, much less to review the workings of probation or suggest improvements. But again, the articles have been stable and calm, so if I may be permitted one more cliche: "If it isn't broke, don't fix it".

Statement by Grundle2600

I agree with the part that says, "the remedies passed are too restrictive on the parties of the case they are applied too." All I have ever done here at wikipedia is add well sourced information to articles. This punishment makes wikipedia worse, not better. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

I would agree that more consideration and leniency should have been given to those who were working to combat the incessant wave of single-purpose account, obvious/egregious POV-driven editors and the like. The reputation and representation of of public figures here and the WP:BLP policy that governs their treatment should be of the highest consideration, and those that work to uphold that singularly-important policy should be given a bit of support during what amounted to an off-Wiki orchestrated and fabricated attack. Civility is important as well, and admonishments were properly handed out there, but the findings of fact that those working to uphold BLP policy were edit warring should be toned down or stricken. Scjessey has noted that the restriction outside of Obama-related articles would impair his ability to edit in other areas, and I feel that that is a sound argument.

I am not so sure about others, however. ChildofMidnight has tested the edges of the topic ban twice now, once a mild reminder as it may have been unclear if AfDs were within the scope, and the second one like would've earned a block in the opinion of that admin, if a formal WP:AE report had been filed.

Grundle2600's restrictions from the committee were lesser than some of the others, but since then has earned a topic ban for 3 months for "clearly problematic editing issues, and [his] general approach".

Response to ChildofMidnight
Honestly, as long as you're going to continue with both attacks against me and the anti-cabal missives, i.e. "misleading statements and trumped up evidence presented to Wizardman", you're only going to put yourself in a worse light. Tarc (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Response to Vassanaya
At the very least, I would say that the 1RR in non-Obama related areas should be lifted. IMO the spillovers, i.e. WP:IAR were unfortunate, but were not severe enough to warrant such a heavy restriction. Tarc (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Scjessey

Thoughts on the process

I found the arbitration process to be a disappointing experience. I had expected that there would be a healthy dialogue between arbitrators and named parties that would lead to a resolution, and I was surprised by the lack of communication that took place. I had assumed that the arbitration committee would focus on trying to create a productive editing environment in the Obama-related articles by offering advice and guidance. I had imagined it would examine the conditions that created the difficult environment and make suggestions about revising and enforcing related policies. I thought the committee would investigate the effectiveness of article probation and offer opinion about how it could be improved. In particular, I expected specific commentary and rulings on BLP-related issues and agenda-driven editing. Instead, the committee appeared to focus solely on meting out punitive measures that seemed to take into account what was happening, but not why it was happening.

Almost all of the disruption surrounding these articles stemmed from agenda-driven editing, and this problem was not addressed by the committee. It is a huge problem on Wikipedia, particularly on articles related to politics or religion, and it isn't going to go away with the imposition of a few topic bans and editing restrictions. ArbCom will continue to face cases such as these as long as this matter remains unaddressed.

Thoughts on the sanctions

The 6-month topic ban I was given had no effect on me, as I had already withdrawn from editing Obama-related articles 3 weeks before it was imposed. The restriction on interaction with User:ChildofMidnight has proved somewhat awkward, because I have to keep checking the history of an article I am about to edit to make sure I am not treading on any metaphorical toes - not really a big deal, but aggravating.

I have found the "one revert per page per week" sanction to be extremely restrictive. It does not impede my ability to make minor edits across a large number of articles, but it makes it largely impossible for me to focus my attention on any articles in particular. Reversions are a necessary part of the editing process, and 99 times out of a 100 they are uncontroversial reversions that could not be described as "edit warring" (in spirit, at least). I believe the scope of this restriction was over-broad and based on a mischaracterization of my editing contributions, and it left me with a strong impression that some members of the arbitration committee may have based their decisions on what parties said happened, rather than what actually happened.

Statement by ChildofMidnight

I support a lessening of the sanctions on the good faith content contributors and article builders who were and are subject to the well documented harassment, personal attacks, and POV pushing from the self-appointed "patrollers" and "protectors".

  • Baseball Bugs and PHGustaff have repeatedly come trolling on my talk page since the Arbcom decision harassing me incessantly by posting numerous unwelcome and unhelpful comments that have nothing to do with article building or the discussion of article content.
  • Tarc continues his incivility and attacks on article talk pages, refusing to focus on content and pushing his personal POV in violation of our core neutral point of view policy. He's continued to threaten editors and to try to delete content he personally disagrees with.
  • As Wikidemon points out, the articles have been stable and as the good faith contributors who have created many articles and added a lot of content on these subjects have been banned and blocked. Improvements won't be made until the ill-considered bans are revoked.

The enforcement and encouragement of bias and censorship by this committee, based on misleading statements and trumped up evidence presented to Wizardman even after his mistakes were pointed out to him need to be corrected. The encyclopedia is severely damaged and its integrity has been violated by the actions of this committee. I welcome a review of the sanctions on the good faith contributors who have worked diligently on improving Wikipedia's coverage and who have demonstrated a willingness to collaborate across a broad range of article subjects.

Their efforts have been stymied long enough by this ill-considered decision and moronic remedies. Obviously I'm not talking about Sceptre, who has made no effort to clean up his history of abuse. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Amendment 2

  • Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
  • Details of desired modification

Statement by your username (2)

{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Wikidemon's comment is fairly persuasive. In addition, I do not see an convincing rationale to revisit this decision, even in the absence of Wikidemon's observations. Addressing Sceptre's points: Regarding BLP enforcement, the edit warring was by no means limited to BLP enforcement and implications to the contrary are blatantly misleading. Regarding sanctions, I reiterate that point. Also, edit warring (as a whole in the case) took place across six namespaces. Warnings, article probation, and other extant measures failed to sufficiently modify and/or restrict the problematic behavior, thus the sanctions do indeed serve a preventative purpose. Regarding restrictiveness, I do not find the argument raised convincing. On the contrary, the willingness to edit war is deeply concerning and reinforces my perception that the restriction is needed. Tying back to the BLP enforcement point raised, the 1RR restrictions still permit exceptions (as per normal policy) for clear cut vandalism and BLP violations. Regarding communication, I can understand the concern that it may have moved too quickly from the workshop to the proposed decision page. That said, the concerns raised are not overwhelming, convincing, nor entirely accurate. The proposed decision and voting lasted over three weeks, providing plenty of time for feedback and comments. Arbitrators did respond to posts on the PD talk page. I know that I and a number of other arbitrators were aware of the PD talk page and workshop comments, taking them into consideration. Additionally, I do not agree with the characterization of the comments' breadth and substance. All that said, the editor histories and conduct issues presented in the case seem to support the sanctions issued. For example, it is suggested that Stevertigo's restriction be more limited, but his edit warring was not limited to the scope requested. --Vassyana (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In reply to Sceptre, it seems from my perspective that you are essentially arguing more against policy than with ArbCom's decision (which is based on policy). WP:3RR leave very few exceptions to the general rule and even goes so far as to note that even acting under those exceptions could still be considered edit warring. If you wish to see other exceptions granted, or wish to document exceptions commonly granted by the community, a broadly advertised discussion at WT:EW is the appropriate route. I will not endorse exceptions that are contained neither within the letter nor spirit of the policy as currently written and presented, especially when multiple arbitration cases and numerous edit-warring reports have rejected the rationale that enforcing style and presentation standards is not subject to the edit warring rule. --Vassyana (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In response to Tarc, in the context of presuming sanctions are warranted and necessary, what alternative sanctions that are better targeted would you recommend? Please bear in mind that while the dispute centered around the Obama articles that it was exported to other areas of the wiki and that much of the edit warring bore little to no relation to BLP enforcement. --Vassyana (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In my votes on the proposed decision, my opinion was that several of the adopted remedies were too harsh, and so I agree that there is a case to be made for modifying some of them. But given that on many of the paragraphs I was the sole dissenter, I suppose I am not the one that the editors seeking an amendment need to persuade. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Statement by Colonies Chris

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

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

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

Reply to Vassyana

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

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

Reply to Vassyana (2)

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

Reply to Vassyana (3)

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

Reply to John Vandenberg / Newyorkbrad

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

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

Reply to John Vandenberg (2)

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

Reply to John Vandenberg (3)

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

Reply to John Vandenberg (4)

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by John Vandenberg

I am going to recuse on these date delinking amendment requests, however I do want to make sure that appeals don't ignore the evidence provided on the FoF, such as Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Evidence#Karl_Popper, where Colonies Chris enters an existing edit-war that has nothing to do with Tennis expert.[49]

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

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

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

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

I have since found more evidence that Lumos3 did edit-war extensively, and I do wish I had time to add that user as a party.[50]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Kotniski

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

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

Reply to Vassyana

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

Note by Nathan

A few short points.

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

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I am not inclined to revist this, especially in light of the presentation of this request. There was significant participation in tag-team edit warring, much of which had nothing to do with Tennis expert. Additionally, discussion participation shows that Colonies Chris took a hard position with an awareness of dissent, supporting full date delinking while rejecting huamn oversight or discretion over (semi-)automated delinking tools (as an example). To blame this broader participation and rejection of common expectations for scripts and bots on a limited conflict with one editor is simply not in accord with the picture provided by the evidence. --Vassyana (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Our principles on edit-warring only make exceptions for limited and obvious cases (BLP enforcement, copyvios, vandalism, banned users, etc). Even then, they encourage caution and note that even those exceptions may sometimes be seen as controversial or even as edit warring (see here). There was participation in group edit warring. A clear (and hardline) position dismissive of concerns and standard oversight requests was expressed. At the time of the reverts, there were quite a number of complaints, dissent, and reasonable requests for accomodation that were not simply from small group of troublemakers (as some would like to portray). The recent bot RfC is a false comparison, as it is purposefully focused and limited. The delinking taking place previously was much broader than the purely full date/autoformatting focus of the new bot. I will note that I am glad that the community is moving towards resolution on the various aspects of date delinking, but that movement should not be misappropriated and misrepresented to excuse prior misconduct. --Vassyana (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In brief response to Colonies Chris, a couple of examples illustrating my point:[51][52][53] --Vassyana (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In response to Kotniski, this isn't about being punitive. I am basing my responses and opinions on what I perceive as previous trends and the likelihoods going forward. You may note that I oppose a restriction on HJensen and support a restriction that does not prohibit you from discussion. In the case of this editor, I see a variety of issues that prevent me from comfortably loosening the restriction. To boil it down: I see an editor that took a strong position in a dispute, who edit-warred to advance that position and refused to acknowledge the problematic nature of the conduct despite it being clearly explained. The way he held his position, and his comments elaborating upon it, lead me to believe that the conduct is likely to repeat in the same general area. His comments and responses indicated to me that he is dismissive of feedback, both from dissenting views and from administrators (the latter reinforcing my preceding concern). Thus, I am left with a situation where I feel there is a strong possibility of further misconduct with very little possibility that he will heed feedback. I hope this better explains my view of the situation. --Vassyana (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I've already bloated this quite enough and we're starting to go around in circles, so this will likely be my last reply (barring some significant new point being raised). There's no need to mindread or evaluate intentions in reviewing the suitability of links. As a basic and relevant example, one should be able to distinguish between full date autoformatting links and Year in X links. The assertion that there is no possible way to use human discretion when examining potential overlinking, including date links, is unconvincing. The recent bot RfC is not a valid comparison, as its scope is limited, while previous delinking was much broader. Additionally, comparing orderly consensus building to edit warring with a dismissive attitude towards reasonable concerns is misguided, at best. This attitude was not limited to Tennis expert and neither was the participation in revert warring. --Vassyana (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I have a preliminary view on this request (like several of the others that have been made arising from this case), but I'd like to ask Colonies Chris to respond to John Vandenberg's observation before I comment further. I think I know what his response is likely to be, but I want to be sure. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Consistent with my views on other appeals arising from this case, I think our sanction here was too broad and would vacate or modify it. I am not sure precisely how far I would go in scaling back the restriction, or whether I would lift it entirely, but will look into the matter in more detail if other arbitrators express any agreement with my position (failing which the issue is pretty much moot). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • At this time, given that the restriction is not onerous, I am not inclined to revisit those sanctions unless they were demonstrably based on an error. — Coren (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • No action needed by the Committee at this time largely do to the reasons stated by Vassyana and Coren. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm thought over the current three dates case appeals and I think the thing to do is have the three editors edit productively for three months and come back for a review/modification request then. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Request to amend prior action: Everyking desysopping

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

Statement by Everyking

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by hbdragon88

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

Statement by Xeno

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

Comment by Mackensen

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

Comment by Balloonman

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

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

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

Statement by Acalamari

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

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

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

Statement by SmokeyJoe

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

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

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

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

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

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

    I would be receptive to the idea that the bureaucrats may be encouraged to have somewhat wider latitude than usual, and that they can recommend a return of the tool be subject to conditions (including a possible review at the end of a probationnary period). This being a rather innovative proposal, however, (despite the unusual precedent), some reasonable community support would nevertheless be required for the process itself. I do think this bears further discussion. — Coren (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • For the moment, waiting in agreement Newyorkbrad's statement and Coren's closing comments. --Vassyana (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Noting that I am open to John's suggestion below. --Vassyana (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • As per Coren, I feel very uncomfortable (in essence) explicitly overturning two failed RfAs to regrant adminship. As a supporter I strongly sympathise with EK's plight, but I don't think this is the right way of addressing this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I cannot personally support the restoration of sysop rights by ArbCom after the community has twice hovered on the borderline. However, if this editor reflects on and addresses the major contentious issues (Question 5 in his last RfA, for instance), his next RfA would probably go much better.  Roger Davies talk 11:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm a crat and an arb. Wearing either or both hats, I can not in good conscience resyssop somone who has the RFA failure record of Everyking. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • A resysop on the condition that you do not close any "consensus" based decisions on your own, followed by a reconfirmation RfA, sounds like a possible way forward. If you can find another admin who will mentor you, and you both will actively undertake in performing closes on some "consensus" based decisions, then the community should be able to evaluate whether they want you to continue doing sysop duties. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    Everyking - I would prefer that you went out of your want to do some consensus based decisions prior to your reconfirmation RfA in order that you demonstrate that you are capable of putting your preferred method (counting) aside and use the tools in the expected manner. I can see why you wouldnt want to do this, and wont require it, but you and a mentor need to work out a mentorship plan so that we can review it. This amendment request should probably be declined at this time, and you probably should circulate your draft plan around before opening a new amendment request. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - on the one hand, Everyking has failed RfAs after the desysop. On the other hand, there's the possibility that some opposition will stem from being desysopped. However, while we can overturn our own desysop, I'd be reluctant in this situation, though I could look into it more. Wizardman 03:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: (Warning, this will be long.)

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

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

  • Comment. Have supported you at RFA and will do so again. I'm not keen on overturning RFAs, and I doubt I would ever vote to do this in similar circumstances. I think you'll pass next time. Cool Hand Luke 16:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Am only just returning to activity, following a wikibreak, but I've been comparing this request to the recently successful (and now archived) request to resysop another admin who was desysopped (I failed to vote on that in time). The difference here seems to be that there are failed RFAs to balance with concerns that the well has been poisoned against resysopping beyond what was reasonable considering the case at the time and the length of time since the case. My conclusion is that I would not oppose a motion to resysop, but I would not yet support it either (ironically, I think the number of appeals filed over the years by Everyking has weighed against him in some people's estimation). Like Cool Hand Luke, I think you have good chances of passing next time, especially if you take John's advice and plan towards it, showing what you are capable of doing (e.g. non-admin closures) and other useful work. I would also endorse a statement by ArbCom stating that though the question of community trust for adminship is not yet clear, Everyking is (and has been for some time) a user in good standing. Carcharoth (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Statement by HJensen

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

Statement by Kotniski

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

Comment by Orderinchaos

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

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I have previously expressed my disagreement regarding findings and sanctions for this editor. I will wait for further statements and the comments of other arbitrators before commenting further. --Vassyana (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I am in the same position as Vassyana, in that in voting on the proposed decision I opposed the finding of fact involving HJensen, and further opined that I would consider the restriction imposed upon him to be overbroad even if I agreed with the finding. I too will await further statements and arbitrator comments here before proceeding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • At this time, given that the restriction is not onerous, I am not inclined to revisit those sanctions unless they were demonstrably based on an error. — Coren (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm thought over the current three dates case appeals and I think the thing to do is have the three editors edit productively for three months and come back for a review/modification request then. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Shortcut:
WP:AE

Requests for enforcement

How to file a request (please use this format!):

Enforcement requests against users may be brought if a user is likely to be acting in breach of the principles and decisions in a closed arbitration case, or a passed temporary injunction (for open cases).

Enforcement is not "dispute resolution". ArbCom decisions are the last stop of dispute resolution. ArbCom has already decided that the actions and behaviors in the remedies are not constructive to our purpose of building an encyclopedia and has ruled they should not recur. The question here is whether or not that prohibition was breached.

Requesting enforcement:

Arbitration Enforcement is not the place for anything other than enforcement of a closed Arbitration Committee ruling. It is not for:

  • Content disputes, unless (very rarely) there is a content dispute prohibition in place. Use Requests for Comments for content issues.
  • Conduct not covered by the ruling. A Request for amendment may be filed if the existing sanctions are inadequate, or help may be requested at the administrators' incident noticeboard.
  • Proposed decisions (other than passed temporary injunctions). A proposed decision is not enforceable until the case is formally closed. Bad behavior in an open case should be reported on the administrators' incident noticeboard and you should consider noting the behavior on the /Evidence page of the case, and in some cases requesting a temporary injunction until the case is completed.
  • Community or administrator decisions, breach of these should be raised at the administrators' incident noticeboard or in exceptional cases, cited as evidence in a request for arbitration.

Conduct at Arbitration Enforcement:

Most editors under ArbCom sanction are neither trolls nor vandals and should be treated with the same respect as any other editor. We should still Assume Good Faith. ArbCom decisions are designed to be coercive, not punitive. Gaming the system at editors under ArbCom sanction is about as civilized as poking sticks at caged animals. Messages posted here that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be redacted and may be deleted.

Administrator information:

  • If you participate on this page you should be prepared to mete out potentially long term bans and you should expect reactive behavior from those banned.
  • In November 2008, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion which stated that administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except
    • with the written authorization of the Committee, or
    • following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so.
    Provisionally (pending updates to the enforcement process), this applies only to specific administrative actions affecting specific users; it does not apply to notices, editor lists, warnings, broad topic area actions, or other "enforcement actions" that are not specific actions applied to specific editors. (Clarification motion)
  • The enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally in order to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Not all enforcement requests will show behavior restricted by ArbCom. It may, however, violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines which you may use administrative discretion to deal with.
  • More than one side in a dispute may have arbcom conduct rulings applicable to them.
  • Once an issue is resolved, close it and move it to the top of the Resolved issues section, from whence a bot should archive it in 3 days.
Using this page

Click here to add a new request and follow the instructions that will appear above the edit box.

Please be aware that as a user requesting arbitration enforcement, it is your responsibility to supply all information required for administrators to determine whether enforcement is required, as described in the instructions. Your request may otherwise be declined without further action.
Arbitration enforcement archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50


Gazifikator

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request concerning Gazifikator

User requesting enforcement:
Grandmaster 12:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Gazifikator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:

  1. [54] First rv
  2. [55] Second rv

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

  1. [56] Gazifikator was placed on editing restriction by Nishkid64 (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
block, and topic ban on Moses of Chorene

Additional comments by Grandmaster:
Gazifikator (talk · contribs) has been placed on editing restriction, which limited him to 1 rv per week. [57] However today Gazifikator made 2 rvs on the article about Moses of Chorene, removing the quotes from professor Robert W. Thomson, a notable expert on the subject. This is a clear and deliberate violation of the remedy. In addition, this user has been engaged in disruptive activity on the article in question for quite some time, reverting any attempts by other editors to include the opinion of the western scholarship on the subject of the article. Therefore, in my opinion, a topic ban on editing the articles related to Moses of Chorene should also be considered. Grandmaster 12:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[58]

Discussion concerning Gazifikator

Statement by Gazifikator

User:Grandmaster previously iniciated 3 editwarrings ([59][60][61] etc) with different users at Moses of Chorene article, and despite last time the article was unprotected by the same Nishkid who noted that he will "reprotect if edit warring flares up" [62], Grandmaster continues POV-pushing. At the same unprotection day a 'new user' comes who reverted to Grandmaster's old version again [63]. And as this 'idea' was also unsuccessful, Grandmaster started another unconsensused editwarring. He adds a detailed minority view, which goes against WP:WEIGHT and is a direct continuation of his previous editwarrings. I explained it many times at the talk, as well as provided more reliable sources criticizing Prof. Thomson's view, who was just a translator of Khorenatsi. But Grandmaster continues his POV-pushing to the article, and he is the only user who's topic ban is really justified. Gazifikator (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors

Please see my comments here: [64]. Given the context, it seems odd that Grandmaster would intentionally ignore the discussion that he participated in and go ahead with those changes. Strikes me like baiting. Sanctions need to be applied evenhandedly.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 14:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Gazifikator

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Gazifikator is in violation of his restriction. His statement above does not address this issue. I have blocked him for 72 hours in enforcement of the restriction. Subsequent violations will result in more severe sanctions.

If there is any misconduct by Grandmaster or others, this is not the place to evaluate it and it does not excuse Gazifikator violating his restriction. All editors may make separate enforcement requests against Grandmaster or others if they believe in good faith that the conduct of Grandmaster or others merits sanctions.  Sandstein  15:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Parishan

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Parishan

User requesting enforcement:
Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Parishan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Severe edit warring in the past 3 weeks:

  • Gago Drago [65], [66] The name of the town was Verinshen in 1985, when he was born, Parishan replaces it with the current Azeri renamed name.
  • Ganja [67] Foreign names were first removed by Proger. Parishan reverted to that version. [68], [69], [70]
  • Julfa [71] Brandmeister removed the Armenian spelling (he called it tweaked). Parishan reverted to that version. [72], [73], [74]
  • Kars [78], Atabek removed the Armenian term and replaced it with Georgian. Parishan reverts to that version. [79]
  • On Lingua Franca he launched a slow revert war that he resumed recently. It all started several months ago when VartanM removed Parishan's addition. [80]. From then on, Parishan engaged in a slow revert war. [81], [82]. Mackrakis modified it to comply with the sources Parishan used, it did not satisfy Parishan. [83], he continued to revert war. [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91]. He stopped for a while, but recently started again. [92], [93], [94].
  • Made drastic changes to the Armenian churches template. [95], followed by a partial revert. [96] then revert: [97]
  • Removed the link to Armenia from an Armenian monastery. [98], then reverted the compromise. [99]
  • I think this is sufficient to get the picture. If not, I will add more. Note that Parishan was almost placed under restrictions during AA1 already. See here: I will not hesitate to initiate a motion to modify this remedy after the case is closed if you involve yourself in edit wars or other disruptive types of editing.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
See below, under 'Additional comments'.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
High time for AA2 restrictions to apply to Parishan

Additional comments by Ευπάτωρ Talk!!:
Note that Parishan was informed officially (that is by uninvolved admins) twice of AA2 restrictions, here and here unlike most users. While the initial reverts were against AzeriTerroru (probable sock account), they are mostly reverts to recent controversial changes. Rest of the reverts were against other users.

In the recent past, various admin’s have confirmed that Parishan has a tendency to edit war but he's not under restrictions. See Deacon of Pndapetzim 's comment and the following report here.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[109]

Discussion concerning Parishan

Statement by Parishan

What we see here is a random collection of all article reverts (controversial, non-controversial, sockpuppet reverts, anonymous vandalism reverts, and even plain edits) that I happened to perform in the past three weeks presented here as a gigantic list of instances of 'edit warring.'

In addition to not being a revert, edit (1) is merely clarification of non-controversial information. It does not take a wiseman to figure out that being born in the given town physically cannot imply being born in the mentioned region. Mind you, it was never disputed further, so the term edit warring does not apply here.

Edits (2) through (12) are reverts of a sockpuppet who could not think of anything better to do than to stalk edit histories of Azerbaijan-related article contributors undoing all their recent edits. His/her reverts would have to be undone eventually.

Edits (12) through (15) do not qualify as 'edit warring.' The other party removed information without consulting the provided sources, but the issue was quickly resolved on the article's talkpage.

Edits (16) through (18) are definitely not edit warring. In fact, with those edits I expanded the template adding more links that pertained to the topic and are not disputed (they are still in the template), and left a comment on the talkpage. My single revert in edit (19) was triggered by the other party either not having noticed the proposed discussion on the talkpage or not willing to participate in it. With that, I did not engage in any more reverts.

I wish I could comment on edits (20) and (21) but I am clueless as to what User:Eupator meant by posting them here. Are they supposed to qualify as 'edit warning'? Please elaborate.

Edits (22) and (23) are one-time edits in different articles; calling them 'edit-warring' seems too harsh.

Edits (24) to (27) are reverts of an anonymous vandal who 'specialised' in removing references to Azeris and the Azeri language from as many Iran-related articles, as s/he stumbled upon, and specifically in the case with Farah Pahlavi in removing sourced information about the personality's ancestry. I have tried twice [110] [111] to get the page at least temporarily semi-protected in order to put an end to this IP-switching user's disruptive activity, but neither time the administration considered this case of vandalism severe enough. Parishan (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors

Eupator, could you please improve the presentation of the evidence so that we can establish more easily whether this is indeed edit-warring? For instance, I am unable to easily determine whether edit #1 is even a revert of somebody. You could complement each entry in the list with the name of the article affected, a diff of the revision reverted to, and the name of the editor who is being warred with.  Sandstein  05:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

In hindsight I see how spending a little more time to organize the diffs would have helped you guys to sort through them.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Eupator, have you ever been involved with a content dispute with this editor? It seems likely because you were a named party in the first AA case. I feel we need to do a thorough review of their entire editing over the last few months (to avoid judging on cherry picked diffs), and we should also review your editing (to establish whether you come here with clean or unclean hands). We should not permit editors to use this board as a tactic to gain the upper hand in content disputes. Jehochman Talk 22:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
AzeriTerroru (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contrib