Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:41, 31 December 2007

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area		6 November 2024	0/5/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Yasuke	13 Nov 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	15 November 2024
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al	none	(orig. case)	15 November 2024
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee	none	none	15 November 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

User:John Gohde

Initiated by Guy (Help!) at 18:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

John Gohde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as requester

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

John Gohde, formerly Mr-Natural-Health (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was subject of a 2004 arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theresa knott vs. Mr-Natural-Health, and issues with his editing have recently been discussed at [1].

As User:John Gohde, he was the subsequently the subject of a second ArbCom case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde, which resulted in a one-year ban from Wikipedia.

Statement by User:JzG

There are a number of problems with John Gohde's editing, principal among which is his tendency to see himself as a bearer of WP:TRUTH. Problems include, for example, describing content edits he disputes as "vandalism" [2], odd comments about "destroying" hyperlinks [3], off-wikipedia attacks [4], describing admins as "mentally ill", using his user page as an advertisement and fund raiser for his personal fork [5], blocked by Thatcher for 48 hours [6] with a recommendation to bring a fresh case if behaviour continues.

Since then he's continued to escalate disputes in a foolish way, e.g. [7], describning others as a "mob" [8], and his response to the block was uncivil and shows a strong and highly inappropriate martyr complex: [9]. Guy (Help!) 18:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Orangemarlin

I hate to repeat myself from previous discussions about User:John Gohde, but the following pushed me to be involved with this editor's arbitration:

Based on reading his contributions in the discussion areas of Complementary and alternative medicine, John Gohde is either unaware of (doubtful, given his long history on this project) or completely ignores Wikipedia policy in the following areas: WP:NPA, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:POINT, WP:VERIFY, WP:OWNand WP:NOR. It is obvious that the one-year blocking had no effect on his behavior. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved kaypoh

This case should be named John Gohde 2. --Kaypoh (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Accept; the previous case is so old that starting a fresh one is probably better than adding a motion to the old one. Kirill 21:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept; per Kirill. FloNight (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeraeph

Initiated by Jehochman at 17:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Zeraeph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Ceoil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mattisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Mikkalai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Psychonaut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Mediations and mediation requests
Administrators' discussions
- 2006-07-19: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive121#User:SandyGeorgia
- 2006-07-23: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive122#User:SandyGeorgia - out of control?
- 2006-09-05: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive134#Talk:Asperger syndrome#SandyGeorgia
- 2006-09-06: User talk:Zeraeph/Archive1#Blocked (notice of block and appeal)
- 2006-09-07: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive58#User:Zeraeph (first community ban discussion)
- 2007-05-30: User talk:Zeraeph/Archive2#Goebbels diaries (notice of block and appeal)
- 2007-07-01: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive266#Excessive forum shopping/harassment
- 2007-07-01: User talk:Zeraeph/Archive3#Block (notice of block and appeal)
- 2007-09-21: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive301#Concerned about personal commentary from User:A Kiwi
- 2007-12-09: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive338#Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Soulgany101
- 2007-12-11: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive339#Psychopathy article and User:Mattisse
- 2007-12-12: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive339#User:Mattisse again, I'm sorry (resulted in 1 month block)
- 2007-12-12: User talk:Zeraeph/Archive3#Block 2 (notice of block and appeal)
- 2007-12-28: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unblock of Zeraeph (second community ban discussion)

Statement by Jehochman

This is a contentious dispute that has persisted for more than one year involving multiple parties. We've had a disputed unblock already, and two community ban discussions that failed to reach consensus. It is my belief that this dispute cannot be resolved without arbitration.

Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia each feel that they have been attacked by the other. Zeraeph has a history of making unsupported accusations of stalking. After a recent one month block of Zeraeph by Mikkalai, SlimVirgin became involved and granted an unblock, against the wishes of several parties. Zeraeph continues to make accusations and hostile remarks to SandyGeorgia in spite of my offer to mediate a settlement, and Zeraeph refuses to accept any agreement that does not treat the parties equally. Given that SandyGeorgia has a clear block log, and Zeraeph has an extensive block history, I do not feel that further negotiations will be fruitful. Additionally, SandyGeorgia says that she is not the only party in conflict with Zeraeph.

I request that the Arbitration Committee investigate the behavior of all parties concerned. The list of involved parties may need to be expanded. Jehochman ^Talk 17:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy smokes! Look at all the bandwidth wasted on prior discussions. Disputes should not be allowed to fester like this. This one is long past due for arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 21:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who wants to join the case may submit a statement. Zeraeph, if you want to respond to what somebody else has said, do so in your own section, as I am doing here. Jehochman ^Talk 01:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zeraeph

I feel strongly that SandyGeorgia's continuing to make unsubstantiated and unprovoked personal attacks on me to other editors and on a variety of talk pages, whilst also jumping in to exacerbate any conflict which touches me does, in fact, constitute stalking and harassment, which has, effectively, and for the most part, over time, driven me off Wikipedia.

I want this situation to end so that we can both edit comfortably and productively.

I am prepared to voluntarily undertake any equal agreement with SandyGeorgia that involves both us undertaking to refrain from discussing or mentioning each other, with identical conditions and sanctions. I will neither request, nor submit to, any unequal agreement as I feel certain, on past experience, such would only serve to exacerbate the situation.

I don't know whether this is the right place to respond to Jehochman above but there is at least one party who wishes to be added as "involved", also, I thoroughly agree, there will obviously not be any resolution by agreement now, so why can't we stop all the circular discussion and let matters take their course? --Zeraeph (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summarising, and linking full comments to keep the size reasonable with permission from David Mestel.

In response to Kaypoh if I may, and also correcting a mistaken impression Marskell has expressed.

I did genuinely mistake SandyGeorgia for a person who has stalked me online for many years Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/A Kiwi. It was a mistake that anyone could make. I have neither thought, nor said, that SandyGeorgia is the same person as that stalker since then. Kaypoh, you are quite right "SandyGeorgia talks about Zeraeph makes her more scared.". Every time there is the slightest conflict in my editing (just in the normal way that affects anyone else), SandyGeorgia attaches herself to that conflict and strives to exacerbate it. See full text User:Zeraeph/arbcom#Kaypoh and Marskell

Casliber, thank you for you comments, there is something that I would like to show to you in respect of the "explosive difficulty to negotiate with others" you say you see in me. See full text User:Zeraeph/arbcom#Casliber--Zeraeph (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for JzG, Asperger syndrome is not a mental illness, but a form of Autism, which, while leaving the individual especially vulnerable to teasing and baiting also predisposes the individual to literal and impartial thinking. --Zeraeph (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that *being there* for SandyGeorgia to attack [19] and [20] actually constitutes any form of harassment? Though I feel it of no relevance to resolving this problem, I do also have some doubts about the value of her contribution [21]--Zeraeph (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC) See full text User:Zeraeph/arbcom#JzG[reply]

Comment for Marskell. The solution offered by SandyGeorgia [22] was unworkable because it asked that I agree to submit my future choices to SandyGeorgia's control (in the last two clauses), and the penalties were so unequal. Agreeing to this would resolve nothing and actually place me in a worse position than at present and my present position is intolerable. My solution is absolutely equal in every respect [23] and only makes us equal in terms of our dealings (or, hopefully, lack of them) with each other, in any other matter the usual policies apply independently anyway and if either of us needs censure that badly there are plenty of other editors to do it.--Zeraeph (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC) See full text User:Zeraeph/arbcom#Marskell[reply]

Jeffpw, I am sorry, you are correct, Jimbo did not personally overturn the block but left it to the blocking admin to do so after stating "I think Zeraeph has a very good point here and should not have been blocked for this. Even the so-called "direct appeal to Jimbo" is being misrepresented here as being part of "forum shopping" when it specifically declines to ask for my support, and is just asking me for my advice." [24]. I too encourage close scrutiny of all the evidence with an open mind, because it is only through such that my name will finally be cleared --Zeraeph (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merkinsmum, technically I suppose I should have no problem with SandyGeorgia "airing her opinions" of me, as long as she takes scrupulous care to adhere to the full facts as known to her, and expresses opinion as opinion and as long as I have an equal right to air my opinions of her at will, without censure, however, I do not think that trying to invoke such a right equally will ever resolve this problem, nor do I think it is necessary or advisable to the development of Wikipedia as a whole. I think we both need to stop talking about, and forget the existence of, each other, and that might not be a bad general rule, either? --Zeraeph (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

SandyGeorgia is a longstanding Wikipedian with a stellar record. Zaraeph - however sincere she might be - has a history that is extremely spotty and has been unable to substantiate her repeated and extreme accusations with anything resembling adequate evidence. This is not the kind of situation that ought to need arbitration, and Sandy has stated repeatedly that this proposal is the opposite of her desires.[25][26][27] Most poignantly, Enough. I lost all evening at FAC and tomorrow I'll be behind. This is nothing but an insult, and worse, from someone who should know what it feels like.[28] I urge the Committee to reject this request and likewise urge certain Wikipedians to withdraw from a situation where their interference is counterproductive and unwelcome. Durova^Charge! 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to LessHeardvanU's statement, it is a straw man argument to insinuate that my statement refers to block records only. Read the above: I never mention either party's block history. SandyGeorgia is one of this Wikipedia's 100 most prolific contributors with a long and honorable history of congenial service to the project. Zaraeph has come into conflict with multiple people and has a consistent history of personal attacks and edit warring. Attempts to construe this as some sort of two sided dispute are based upon two factors:

Zaraeph makes personal attacks so habitually that some people appear to have become inured and fail to block for it.
Sandy finds this situation frustrating, since she is the principal target of the personal attacks, and occasionally expresses her frustration in polite terms.

Durova^Charge! 21:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mikkalai

I support the opinion of Durova that this case is not for ArbCom. The issue is clean and simple and covered by the corresponding policy, which may be invoked by any admin. Both sides must state clearly that they will refrain from attacks on each other in article talk pages and discuss article content only. I blocked user:Zeraeph for longer time for their aggressive behavior in "Psychopathy" and Talk:Psychopathy and strongly warned user:Mattisse to stop waging the chaotic war however justified it may me. I also told user:Zeraeph that I will unblock them if Seraeph promises to discuss article content only, rather than editor's personality. This was met with flat refusal. Later user:SlimVirgin unblocked user:Zeraeph and I see a rather normal pattern of editing in Psychopathy. I would advice both parties to "forgive and forget", remember that people are not ideal, give each other some slack, and limit themselves to discussing content rather than each other. If there is no agreement as to content, the proper way is to involve other wikipedians rather than beat each other on heads.

The nominator wrote: "Zeraeph refuses to accept any agreement that does not treat the parties equally." I fail to see what's wrong with this. I may only guess that Zeraeph was angry that I blocked ony Zeraeph but not Mattisse. I have no idea what's the deal with SandyGeorgia.

Since SlimVirgin unblocked Zeraeph, it is her responsibility to make an attempt to coach Zeraeph into acceptable behavior. If this fails, than the block must be reinstated, clean and simple.

On the other hand, all other editors must correspondingly take a break and stop any accusations towards Zeraeph, even if provoked, and discuss article content only.

The statement of Zeraeph is in agreement with this proposal and IMO this is enough to defuse the situation. `'Míkka >t 19:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Marskell

The committee has a difficult choice on this one. On the one hand, Durova is correct that an arb case shouldn't be necessary. A clear cease-and-desist order to Zeraeph with an escalating block structure developed at AN ought to be enough. But that's failed thus far. Numerous mediation attempts and previous ban discussions have not improved Zeraeph's behaviour. Two critical issues, as I see them, both on display after the latest unblock:

Zeraeph appears to remain convinced that Sandy is a stalker she encountered nine years ago. "In September 2006 I sincerely mistook her for a sockpuppet of a woman who has stalked me since 1999. I made this mistake for the very simple reason that User:SandyGeorgia behaves just, uncannily, like her. I knew that then, and it is proved to me many times over since." (My emphasis).[29]
More general persecution fantasies are at work. Regarding User:Ceoil: "...he is becoming very personal and heated, I have just realised that he also seems to live within 30 miles of me"[30] and then "I just feel genuinely scared to see so much completely groundless vitriol, from a total (I hope) stranger emanate from such a nearby geographical location."[31] That is, a completely unsubstantiated insinuation that another editor poses a physical threat, fresh from her unblock.

This editor needs correction and, on balance, I suggest arb take the case. I am totally sympathetic to the fact that she may have faced off-Wiki problems that have created paranoia here, but other editors should not have to bear the brunt of it. Marskell (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I'd suggest delayed acceptance. There is still discussion at AN. If that has some success, this may not be necessary. Marskell (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum 2: SlimVirgin notes that Sandy's friends have rallied around her; I should add that I'm seen as one. Sandy has friends because of the enormous amount of work she does here. That "[Sandy] also didn't want to agree to any disengagement arrangement that implied parity between her and Zeraeph" is not true. She offered this. Zeraeph also offered one. Zeraeph would like any censure/remedy to be totally equal; it was pointed out to her that that's not fully possible, as she has a block record and Sandy does not. Marskell (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LessHeard vanU

I believe that ArbCom is now the only venue by which all the parties are able to put forward their views on these matters, where they are not distracted by input of other parties, will be able to review and answer specifically points raised regarding their and other peoples statements, and possibly have the opportunity to fully comprehend the other parties concerns and viewpoints. Other attempts at dispute resolution (noting that disputes within particular articles often do not include parties that have or had influenced that particular matter) have not been able to encompass all of the parties and viewpoints in a formal manner. In short, no other procedure is available to all concerned which can evaluate and address all of the problems arising, and I feel that only decisions at this level is going to be acceptable and recognised by all of the individuals.

With respect to Durova, a clean block record vs. one filled with entries is no basis on which to consider the validity of a request. My block log is also clear, and I deservedly received my first proper warning yesterday over this matter. Our actions alone will condone or condemn us.

(response to Maskell) As commented above to Durova (which I confirm is an innocent misrepresentation of what she said) is that unequal application of the same remedies is no basis of an agreement. To change the type of remedies discussed, what would be the point of limiting SG to 2RR and Z to 1RR? It resolves nothing since there is an advantage which penalises one party and gives no reason for the other party to disengage. Equal application of remedy may work, since SG has no desire to spoil her record and Z's blocklog will mean that the determined tariff will be more severe consequences.LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(response to Guy) The fact of Asbergers is unimportant, except where WP:CSB is concerned. We invite contributions from the entire community - including those who are not neuro-typical.LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

Picking a fight with SandyGeorgia is... special. I have come across a lot of people on Wikipedia, and SandyGeorgia is one of the most energetic and excellent builders of content ad consensus I know. I've had nothing to do with the dispute, but I feel strongly enough about SandyGeorgia's commitment to the encyclopaedia that I can't let this pass without a testimonial, for what it's worth (i.e. not a lot).

I understand Zeraeph has aspergers. Interesting but ultimately not an excuse: Wikipedia is not therapy. We can't fix a real-world problem with one editor's mental health by damaging the reputation of another, especially one as good as SandyGeorgia. Putting up with harassment of one of Wikipedia's best, most prolific and most respected editors in the name of "countering systemic bias" does not wash; aspies are not, to my knowledge, victims of systemic bias in Wikipedia. If they were, SandyGeorgia would be high on the list of people to fix that, given her reputation for great content. Aspies do not get a free pass to be obsessive and disruptive if it damages the project. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jeffpw

I have known SandyGeorgia since my start on Wikipedia. She has been unfailingly helpful to me, and in fact, undertook to help me improve the referencing of a Featured Article I wrote which she felt had been promoted while not ready. Though frustrated by what had occurred, she gave hours of her time to help someone when she had no reason to other than a desire to improve Wikipedia.

Since that time I have had her talk page watchlisted, and am astonished at the number of people she helps, and the hours she logs to move this project forward. She has a well deserved reputation for excellence and collegiality on this site.

That Sandy has been unfairly maligned by Zeraeph is beyond question to me. What is a question is why Zeraeph has been allowed to continue her attacks and paranoid assertions of stalking to this day without being banned from further disruption of this project.

Zeraeph has not only attacked SandyGeorgia here, but on <ext link removed by user:Crum375>Wikipedia review, an attack site targeting Wikipedian editors. That s/he has been allowed to continue these attacks, which would earn most other editors a block, is baffling. Baffling, too, is the presence of a Wikipedia Administrator, LessHeard vanU, on the Review site, engaged in discussion with Zeraeph and also involved in this arbitration proceeding. This seems a clear conflict of interest to me.

I urge rejection of this arbitration and nothing less than a total block of Zeraeph. This disruption of the project has gone on far too long and runs the risk of driving away contributers who form the very backbone of our mission. Jeffpw (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also concerned that this arbitration will provide Zeraeph a platform to continue her unfounded claims against SandyGeorgia, and other claims which s/he cannot substantiate. She is a prolific writer, apparently, and I am afraid if each claim s/he makes is not checked, a distorted picture will be allowed to emerge unchallenged. In the less than 24 hours this arbcom proceeding has been opened, Zeraeph has already falsely claimed that Jimbo overtuerned her block. That is simply not true. He weighed in on her talk page, but I can find no evidence that he did more than that. Her claims that he did give the impression that the project founder supports her actions, which I sincerely doubt. This sort of misrepresentation is typical from what I have seen of this editor. Jeffpw (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SlimVirgin

I agree that the situation needs to be dealt with by the ArbCom. An ugly dynamic has developed, in which one block of Zeraeph is triggering other blocks, with the blocks sometimes based at least as much on reputation as on actual behavior e.g. this comment by a blocking admin. This has led to an inevitable downward spiral, with few willing to step back to look at the whole picture.

It's worth noting that Zeraeph has Asperger's (and has told people about this onwiki), which can make it hard for her to deal with other people's emotions, especially when they're flying thick and fast at her as they have been in this situation.

My involvement: Zeraeph was recently blocked for a month by Mikkalai over behavior during a content dispute with Matisse at Psychopathy. Z asked to be unblocked, and in the course of looking at that, I saw that some anons had left personal attacks on her talk page e.g. these comments, which I removed. Mikkalai said he didn't mind if I reviewed the case and unblocked Zeraeph early [32] (she was two weeks into her block), so I did. At that point, I was unaware of Zeraeph's long dispute with SandyGeorgia.

Looking at the background now, it seems there has been fault on both sides. Rightly or wrongly, Zeraeph feels bullied by SandyGeorgia. This has caused her to overreact to Sandy's criticism of her, and the overreaction has triggered more criticism. It has led to Zeraeph commenting on SandyGeorgia's mental health and accusing her of stalking, and Sandy and her friends, as well as various anon IPs, commenting on Zeraeph's mental health, with blocks of increasing length handed out to Zeraeph who was identified as the culprit. Both women have been editing in areas in which they have emotional investment, and that has contributed to the strength of feeling and the personality clash. The result is two very upset women, one of whom has wikifriends who rally round to support her, the other of whom doesn't. The disparity strengthens Zeraeph's sense of isolation and feeling that she's being bullied.

Several people have tried to intervene to sort things out. Jimbo intervened on Zeraeph's behalf some weeks ago, [33] when she was blocked in part for "forum shopping," after asking Jimbo for advice about a dispute. LessHeard vanU was also helping out. Yesterday, I asked SandyGeorgia to disengage from Zeraeph and allow others to decide how to proceed. Her response was to accuse me of being an "involved" admin, for reasons that remain unexplained. She also didn't want to agree to any disengagement arrangement that implied parity between her and Zeraeph. Sandy also criticized LessHeard VanU's impartiality. Given this animosity and the complex dynamics, it seems that an ArbCom case is the only way to hear all sides fairly. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to Marskell's point above that talks are continuing at AN, there has been no resolution and the discussion has been archived. [34] SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Casliber

I too agree that the situation needs to be dealt with by the ArbCom. The AN debate became (has become?) a malignant juggernaut of text drawing further people and bad will into it. I only came across the aftermath late yesterday and was highly dismayed by what I saw. The whole debate needs to be structured and investigated systematically due to the amount of evidence needed to be sifted through. As someone who works in mental health I have seen what Zeraeph has contributed to psychopathy and Asperger syndrome, there has been some valuable input in both cases. However that is combined with an at times explosive difficulty to negotiate with others for various reasons. Therefore the value of her contributions has to be weighed against the other issues systematically. I haven't the inclination to wade through the mountain of evidence to determine the proportion of blame though I am concerned about ongoing conflicts and fear they will recur. Over to you arbcom. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Orderinchaos

I am largely seconding points made by Casliber, Jeffpw, Durova and Marskell here. In my experience, SandyGeorgia is a stellar contributor and one of the most approachable people on standards for FAC. Given my first interaction with her was a potential conflict, and was resolved very amicably at least in part due to her approach to the situation (was a situation where I mistakenly called her out for something on which she turned out to be right). At a recent dispute on Talk:South Australian general election, 2006, she handled an irrationally hostile editor who took exception to some of her article improvement suggestions by backing away and giving it time (you can see some of the conversation between me and her on this on her talk page). While I have no specific knowledge of the particular conflict here, I have no reason to believe she would be so markedly different from the person I have come to know, and the other named statements and those of others appear to support this analysis. On reading some of the diffs and evidence, I don't believe SlimVirgin's undoing of the ban was either warranted or particularly wise - while not done in a way which breached policy, in general undoing the actions of others, especially when one does not appear to be in possession of all of the facts, is ill-advised and has been warned against by the Committee in previous judgements. Orderinchaos 02:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commentbeh by kaypoh

What I think is that someone (not SandyGeorgia) stalked Zeraeph but she thought SandyGeorgia is the stalker, and the way SandyGeorgia talks about Zeraeph makes her more scared. ArbCom needs to handle this. I suggest that you ban SandyGeorgia from talking about Zeraeph and ban Zeraeph from talking about SandyGeorgia, so they will leave each other alone and contribute to Wikipedia without worrying about stalking. --Kaypoh (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by CeilingCrash

I think Arbcom should look at this issue. While SG has no shortage of glimmering testimonials to produce here, it is behavior and not reputation that should be considered. I, for one, have encountered SandyGeorgia in the Asperger's article and found her to be a highly unwelcoming bully who is not willing to form consensus nor to regard the five pillars. I explicitly made this complaint against her - with specific examples - in the Talk section, which SG was quick to archive off the main talk page and away from view. You may view it here -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive17#The_smoking_gun_:_Baron-Cohen.2C_POV_Bias

One can also peruse back through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive16, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive15, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive14, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive13.

An exemplary and (to me) particularly poignant example of baseless truculence can be seen in her words here. She is responding to a reference by Hans Asperger where he states that people with AS "often have highly successful careers" ...

Where is a quote that says AS characteristics "often" lead to fulfilling careers? That statement implies that most people with AS have fulfilling careers; where's the evidence? -- SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 18 August 2007 (excerpt - not a live comment)

There are now a handful of editors who grew tired of endlessly arguing with SandyGeorgia over the right of RS to exist and simply left wikipedia altogether. Not to speak for others, but PropellorPoindexter left, as did AlexJackl, and as for me - I decided that my time is valuable, and best reserved for non-wikipedia forums which welcome quality contributions.

You can also see other editors chiding SandyGeorgia for being threatening in response to a discussion of placing a POV tag on the Asperger's article

tagging the article could be viewed as pointy and disruptive by admins or ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC) P.S., by the way, in the diff above, who is "we"? I hope there is still not on- and off-Wiki canvassing to disrupt this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive17#Discussion_of_the_NPOV_status_of_current_article

I know little of the conflict between Z and SG. But if you read the Asperger Talk archives, you can only conclude that SandyGeorgia's behavior has played a part in any resulting conflict.

To say nothing of the people who - rather than complain, simply walked away.

(updated w/ corrections) CeilingCrash (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment by Merkinsmum

I've not been much involved in this dispute but when Mattisse and Zeraeph were rowing, User:SandyGeorgia was airing her opinion to Mattisse and others on her talk page about Zeraeph's personality etc, based on her previously established prejudices, when it was a dispute between Z and M in which she wasn't remotely involved. It reminded me a little of behaviour I've seen a certain user demonstrate against Matisse (not Z, someone else)- whenever Matisse is in an argument this user has to tell everyonne what a rotter Mattisse is. We also shouldn't judge people unequally based on their number of edits, but try and look at this particular case. Personally I have not had a good impression of User:SandyGeorgia, she thinks 'she knows best' and is revert-happy rather than talking to other editors, which is rude. Merkinsmum 03:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Accept to examine the conduct of all involved parties. The Community disagrees on how to handle the situation so we need to find the best solution. FloNight (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept because this is clearly a long-running issue that has not been resolved. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Kirill 22:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NE2

Initiated by Rschen7754 (T C) at 02:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Rschen7754 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
TwinsMetsFan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Scott5114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Son (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JohnnyAlbert10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
NE2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lpangelrob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
O (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Rschen7754

NE2 has refused to follow consensus several times, leading to the exhausting of the patience of the U.S. Roads WikiProject. With the current issue at hand, the inclusion of auto trails and city streets within the scope of USRD, NE2 has gone against the consensus (of six editors) and has reverted mainspace[42] and project pages[43] several times. In fact, he said he is willing to ignore consensus[44]. In the Mediation Cabal started shortly thereafter, he declined mediation, fearing that it would lead to concerns about his conduct here. However, this conduct is nothing new. Three previous RFCs have been filed in regards to similar matters. In fact, with the last mediation (being carried out at WT:HWY), even though the consensus was against him, many users just gave up because they were tired of fighting.

And yes, this does remind me of the WP:RFAR/HWY case, where SPUI held a similar attitude (section 7.2.3), and of the subsequent end to SRNC with a refusal to listen to consensus.

In terms of my page protection, this was neutral as it contained neither scott nor NE2's wording but said the scope was under dispute. I stand by my record as an administrator for over 2 years. I may have broken the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law.

In terms of a walled garden - this has been brought to our attention, and we have worked to make amends, including sending out apologies towards late summer 2007 (with my sending them) and during the last month displaying "Consensus must be done on wiki" in the topic. However, I realize that this may not have been 100% effective. As far as "NE2 bashing", although I have tried not to do this, I do apologize for my part and for allowing it to go on.

- Note If possible, could the opening of arbitration be delayed until past the first Sunday in January? I am on vacation and cannot edit Wikipedia as much. I understand if this is not possible however. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE2

The locus of the dispute is the purpose of WikiProject tags on talk pages. Should they be used on articles that relate to the project, or ones that the project members care about? (Two examples of disputed articles are Old Plank Road and Lake Shore Drive.) I would argue the former, since someone editing the article and wanting help should know which projects may be able to help. The other editors listed argue the latter, since they feel having stubs that they don't care about reflects badly on them and hurts their placement on the "Leaderboard". I asked what the purpose of these tags is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#What's the use of a project tag on the talk page?, and the general consensus of uninvolved editors, where they opined, is that they exist to help editors new to Wikipedia or that topic, and that it's not a problem if stubs exist because it's "the top of the scale" that matters. There are a number of sub-disputes that have erupted from this, such as the fact that the project scopes are often unclear, apparent collaboration on IRC to oppose me, and wanting any road (such as East Fork Road) that doesn't pass their somewhat strange notability criteria (basically anything numbered at the state level is notable but there's a very high bar for unnumbered routes, similar to the dispute over what gets tagged as part of the project), but the general question is why the project tags exist. --NE2 03:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scott5114

NE2 has clashed with the U.S. Roads project community several times. This is not inherently bad, but the manner in which these clashes have taken place is what has exhausted our patience with him. NE2 frequently edits against a consensus, as he did during the "decommissioned" debate this past October; an RFC was filed against him for this, which has links to diffs of edits such as these. During this dispute, he has said "You don't need consensus to improve articles"[45][46]. During the course of the most recent debate, he said "I'm always willing to ignore consensus"[47] and "You'll have to force me out"[48]. While NE2 can contribute positively to the encyclopedia, headbutting with him over issues has quickly become tiring. Civility may also be an issue here, with comments like "Would you like an eyepatch? We're having a special: two for $2..."[49] and "Duh... we already discussed this, and nobody objected." [50] He has also failed to assume good faith by accusing his opponents of forming a false consensus through IRC[51]. NE2's conduct makes working on roads projects difficult, as there's always a chance that a discussion will be roadblocked by him and nothing gets done.

NE2 has apparently clashed with other groups of editors as well, judging from comments left on RFC 1 and RFC 2. I believe that, undeterred, NE2's pattern of refusing to cooperate with the community will continue. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Picaroon

This doesn't appear to be an arbcom-level dispute; the extent to which user conduct is an issue here is even less than in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters. In this case, several project members have an opinion one way, while NE2 disagrees (see talk page). That's about it. RFCs 1 and 2, while pitting NE2 vs a couple of the same project members, are not the same dispute as this one, and should not be listed under the dispute resolution section. None of the three show much outside commentary: the project members who disagreed with NE2 are signing one set of views, while NE2 signs another view.

In response to Scott5514, [52] and [53] are isolated examples of borderline incivility. Hardly arbcom worthy. "He has also failed to assume good faith by accusing his opponents of forming a false consensus through IRC" Assuming SPUI is telling the truth here, (and I see no reason to assume otherwise), NE2's distrust of this cliquish project's IRC channel is well-founded.

Again, there's not really a case here. My advice to the road project members is to desist with the fortress mentality, which Krimpet brings up in the second rfc, and actually seek a compromise with NE2. You're all part of one encyclopedia, first and foremost. Wikiprojects are insignificant in the scheme of things, and attempts to make them otherwise should be discouraged. Picaroon (t) 04:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Edit Centric

In the process of contributing to the WP:USRD and WP:CASH projects, it has been my fortune to work with a number of these editors, including NE2. While some of our discussions have not been, shall we say "productive"[54], I have also seen this editor make some noteworthy contributions to articles that I regularly keep a weather eye on, such as CA SR 99's history section. I truly believe that NE2 is capable of some fantastic contributions to the project overall.

While saying this, I also have noted his unwillingness to work within consensus at various times, as well as an equal unwillingness to join other USRD editors over in IRC. I'm not insinuating that the IRC factor is necessary for development of articles, however it IS a useful tool for real-time discussion of various edits, proposals, and just getting to know your fellow editors. In short, it's yet another community-builder, one that NE2 has chosen to remain OUTSIDE of. I have personally invited him over to IRC, in the hopes that through this medium, the different thought processes and conversations that affect USRD might be better revealed, and that NE2 might be a bit more enlightened by it, as would all USRD editors.

Since there have been other RFCs on this editor, this begs the question; how many does it require before an editor will either A)work within the project's editing community for the betterment of the project, or B)be respectfully asked to dissociate themselves from the project, and move on to other avenues for success? Personally, I would LOVE to see NE2 make more attempts to follow consensus, make more wonderful contributions like he has done in the past, and remain a viable part of USRD. It is my sincere hope that this RFA process will result in these ends. Edit Centric (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FOLLOW-UP - Evidently, we DO have a problem within USRD and CASH. Please see the following link of today's revert war between NE2 and admin FCYTravis. [55]

Personally, I am a bit surprised at this, especially given the circumstances of this RFAR. Edit Centric (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Son

This discussion originated as a debate over making an Auto Trails task force within WP:USRD, which I proposed, but did not otherwise comment in. [56]

The debate then changed to Wikipedia talk:USRD#Change of scope nationwide, which was a proposal by Rschen7754. The proposal was to eliminate city streets from WP:USRD. After numerous comments and debate, I decided to add my two cents, by pointing out to NE2 that the user was the only one arguing against the proposal, and that WP:USST was created with the point of taking city street articles from WP:USRD. [57]

After several more comments, NE2 asked for a proposal to work with, so I quoted Rschen7754's initial proposal. [58] After more discussion, I commented again. [59] NE2 replied and I responded back starting a back and forth conversation between the two of us. I stated that WP:USST was created specifically to remove articles from WP:USRD. [60] NE2 responded by saying that it was created for all the wrong purposes and is not "a garbage dump for unwanted articles." [61] This upset me, as while the project was created specifically to remove articles from under WP:USRD, the purpose of the project is to help grow and improve these articles. [62] NE2 also challenged the standing of WP:USST, which is a young project and still has not gotten off its feet, largely because of the amount of clashing between WP:USRD and WP:USST. I also pointed out that consensus was not in NE2's corner. [63] NE2 responded by saying "You'll have to force me out." [64] I replied by asking NE2 if "you were willing to ride against consensus and be a disruption?" [65] NE2's response was "If you're talking to me, I'm always willing to ignore consensus." [66] I asked if NE2 was trying to make some kind of point [67], and the response was "No, I just know your track record. [68] This is a reference to a discussion on whether decommissioned highway is a neologism or not. My position was to follow common sense and ignore the rules in that particular situation. [69]

That is my primary involvement in the discussion. Through that discussion, NE2 has truly demonstrated that he would be willing to be a disruption to the project, all to obtain his result, even when consensus is clearly against him. When I mentioned WP:IAR it was under the understanding that it is meant to be used in specific cases. I felt that that was one of them. To use WP:IAR as a means to run around consensus is a disruption. NE2 has admitted as such.

While I believe that while NE2 has been somewhat helpful to the project, the negatives NE2 shows by being more of a disruption than anything else ([70], [71], [72] ) outweigh the helpfulness NE2 has brought to the project at this point. NE2 has had two RfC's (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NE2 and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NE2 (second RFC)). Nothing has seemed to improve with NE2's behavior, despite these RfCs. NE2's level of incivility can be overbearing at times also, and that has not changed over time. I find it highly unlikely that it will change, nor do I find it likely that NE2 will change unless action is taken. NE2 has stated that NE2 would be willing to be a disruption if NE2 does not get what NE2 wants. This cannot be allowed. --Son (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Will Beback

I'm concerned with a related admin action by Rschen7754. He edited the project page in the midst of an edit-dispute[73], then protected it.[74] When I asked him about it on his talk page he showed no awareness of his error. [75] ~~On further onvestigation, it appears that Rschen7754's blanking was not neutral, but rather had the effect of reverting a previous edit by NE2, his opponent in this dispute.[76]~~ (I've been told that the blanking was reasonably neutral) If the ArbCom takes this case I suggest they review this type of behavior. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned about the behavior exhibited regarding East Fork Road, which is how I became aware of this dispute. That article has been on my watchlist for years. NE2 made some small additions to it earlier this month, then yesterday he tagged it as belonging to the USRD project.[77] Rschen7754 reverted that tagging four miuntes later.[78] 32 minutes later, with no apparent discussion, Rschen7754 redirected the article to California State Route 39, even though they are different roads. He immediately undid that action and a minute later user:O nominated the article for deletion.[79] The AfD was marked by at least one "per Scott5114 and Rschen7754" vote by a party to this RfAr. In the midst of the discussion Rschen7754 cited a notability standard that apparently has not been adopted. Within three hours six members of the USRD project had participated, all (besides NE2) asking for deletion or merging. As it happens, sources and additional claims of notability were easily added and the nominator withdrew the AfD. But the quick piling-on seemed so notable that I commented about it on the mediation page.[80] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TwinsMetsFan

The recent issue with NE2 is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg, and focusing only on said tip does not do this case justice. Issues with NE2 regarding consensus date as far back as the conclusion of the state route naming conventions poll in 2006 when NE2 attempted to reopen the entirety of SRNC, a resolution to months of absolutely absurd actions (page move wars, revert wars, a conflict that resulted in an ArbCom case - you name it, it probably happened) accepted by consensus, for nothing more than a minor programming change.[81] Is it wrong to give a suggestion? No. But is it wrong to give one considering the circumstances and also continually attempting to force-feed this suggestion for no reason other than to take advantage of the "pipe trick"? I believe so.

There's been other disputes, some less important than others. But a consistent trait from SRNC through the modern day is that NE2 is extremely difficult to work and collaborate with. I have tried to do so, with very mixed success. There was one dispute over content on New York State Route 52 that was resolved after a long period of discussion. There have been others, most recently a debate over a word used in the articles of former numbered highways, where he took unilateral, controversial action over dozens of articles, swapping one word for another, with no discussion. When the discussion was brought to the table, the end result was a long, drawn-out argument that ended only when an uninvolved third party developed an acceptable compromise. Both sides were at fault here in hindsight, but NE2's cold, condescending, self-omniscient manner that he carries with him to virtually every talk page likely delayed a resolution that could have been obtained much faster. And recently, NE2 has defied consensus by unilaterally determining project scopes against the consensus developed by said project. Now, the ArbCom probably doesn't give two damns about the actual action since it doesn't touch article space, but it is the point behind the action; that NE2 is on record as saying that he will ignore consensus if he doesn't believe the consensus is palatable. This creates an unhealthy environment for all editors and hinders the amount of progress that can actually be done. Wikipedia works by consensus and discussion, and it's apparent to me that NE2 is unable to accept the former and contribute to the latter in a manner that allows for peaceful resolutions. He's had three RFCs and two MedCabal cases levied against him for actions such as the ones previously described.

He has performed the same way at other projects as well (namely WP:NYCPT) and I see no reason that he will change now or in the future unless something is done. Every effort is made to work out a compromise when disputes arise, but what good is a compromise when he'll ignore it anyway if he doesn't like it? What is then the point of discussion? How can an editor help others work productively in a wiki-based environment if they think that the community's ideas, even widespread and generally accepted ones, are worthless and not worth following? The point of compromising and discussion is to come to a consensus, and ignoring consensus, especially blatantly and intentionally ignoring it as NE2 is doing, helps no one. Comments such as "you'll have to force me out" don't help either. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 07:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amarkov

Neither side is free of blame here. NE2 is certainly ignoring consensus when he wants to, but at the same time the USRD participants are either collaborating on IRC or doing a very good job of appearing to. I think we really need Arbcom to sort this out. -Amarkov moo! 07:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by tangentially involved Krimpet

I used to be involved in USRD months ago, and pretty much ended my activity with the WikiProject over these issues. As Picaroon mentioned above, I stated my opinion on this dispute in one of the NE2 RfCs, and I'll expand on it here.

Sadly, this is largely a rerun of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways. USRD has unfortunately turned into a rather arcane bureaucracy, claiming and maintaining roads-related articles as a walled garden with their declared processes and guidelines over such minor and trivial details as style, formatting, and WikiProject tags, the same kind of trivial stuff that led to the SRNC debacle that was thankfully before my time here. :/ NE2 tends to be quite BOLD and overly headstrong at times, but his concerns are valid and it seems he's being ignored and steamrolled by a supposed consensus to revert his changes per these supposed processes and guidelines even when it's been explicitly stressed in the Highways RfAR that here on Wikipedia that guidelines are only that and not binding, alternative forms and arbitrary decisions are acceptable, and that there are many ways acceptable to accomplish a given task.

If there's something ArbCom needs to look at, it should really be the "us vs. them" attitude of a core group of USRD members, and how the WikiProject has largely become a bureaucratic walled garden instead of integrated with and subordinate to the project and community as a whole. krimpet✽ 14:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by partly-involved Mitchazenia

I am a usual active member of USRD but decided to back out until being persuaded by another user to release my feelings. I've opposed this ArbCom case in the IRC channel, where much of yelling and complaining goes on over and over again.

Most users find NE2 an editor who does good work when its right, but he often goes against consensus. Usually consensus is not a thing to ignore consensus. The first example was in the third RFC where he changed the term "decommissioned" to "deleted" without a consensus. He did start a conversation before doing that however. My personal feelings are that NE2 should try to start waiting for consensus. His continuous denial of everything is causing the project to go nowhere. We're here to make/expand articles for the common good, not to argue over dumb issues like consensus. I'd also like to see less of the "All of us versus NE2" in IRC and on Wiki, as its causing a big blacklistment of the project and problems with the users. The third RFC was a minor example of this and now this ArbCom case is making things worse.

This is not the first time that USRD has gotten in trouble, see the State Route Naming Conventions case back in 2006. Most of those users aren't with Wiki anymore, but it helped make the project better (and unfortunately gave it a black-eye for some users). Around May 2007, the current group of USRD editors came together. However, NE2 has always felt we hate him and always defy anything we say. Look at New York State Route 52, he and the usual group disputed his ownership of the article, that resulted in the first RFC for him. That was solved in time, and he learned that. For a little while, it was just small bouts. Then he decided to have a thing for the Non-free shields, causing another RFC, which was filed under WikiLawyering. Things got worse, with more IRC bashing, and the third RFC came out over the decommissioned dispute. I haven't checked if there was a consensus, but I know that is was going somewhere. Now this. Everything was going smoothly on a new task force, and NE2 went crazy on it.

Now that I've expressed details, this is what I want to see personally:

For NE2:

NE2 listening to consensus and be willing to be more civil.
NE2 to be more on the willing side at all. He has issues. He's a great editor, he's just gotta be more understanding. If you have an idea, bring it up civily, not personally attacking people.

For Rschen, TMF, Scott5114 and etc.

The current users, including me, stop bashing all of NE2's moves on IRC and take it like men.
Stop using IRC for consensus: This is what personally is making all these messes. Ideas should be brought up on IRC, but also brought to the project talk.

One reason I opposed this ArbCom is that I don't wanna see my buds here at USRD banned or topic banned from Wiki, they're some of my best friends and I accept them a lot. Sure, I'm not the best, so what? They do enough for me and willing to stand up for my friends in return. Thanks for your time and patience.^Mitch32^contribs 17:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by O

First of all, I am extremely surprised at how this dispute steamrolled into this. First it was about a discussion of an auto trails project, then it turns to project scopes, and finally the subject of NE2 himself—I was starting to get extremely confused about what the subject of the dispute is by the time the Mediation Cabal came around. Because of that, I opposed this RFAR like Mitchazenia, but was forced into it anyway.

As demonstrated above, the problem is not just NE2, but for all of USRD. It is clear that USRD has become a walled garden after the main editors have come together, largely in part of IRC. Some of the project members (not including me) claim that the supposed USRD consensus almost owns the articles in its scope, while the opposite, which is just a group of editors collaborating over articles to improve the encyclopaedia, should be in effect. The supposed group of contributors who often agree on one issue may not always be right, but in no way should a consensus even attempt to throw bombs at a disagreeing contributor. This is poor behaviour and it should stop now. Right now. I was even harassed once by those editors on IRC about even having my own opinion about a certain issue, and that should never happen.

As for NE2, there is hardly anything wrong with him as a frequent contributor to discussions and articles, no matter how disruptive he may seem. He's one of the best contributors to content here—being one of those who is able to make an article FA if he tries hard enough. He is free to express his opinion in any and all discussions open to the community, and to that end, nobody should be throwing bombs at each other, hence why he said "you'll have to force me out." My tip to NE2, however, would be to try not to be extremist so that Wikipedia can still be smooth sailing. Other than that, I feel that the main fault of all this belongs to the group of USRD editors, not NE2; it is just like what happened with the Kurt Weber situation, though only with a different situation. It is a shame that they would want to do this because he disagrees so often, and I would not want such a valued contributor to get banned from the topic of transportation. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 01:08, 30 December 2007 (GMT)

Statement by partially involved Master son

What I see here is that the members of USRD are involved in a behavioral conflict. I too have been involved in some of these consensus debates and have cosigned the second RFC. After doing that - I came to realize it isn't just about NE2, its about the walled garden that certain members of U.S. Roads WikiProject have developed.[82]. Some users were hoping that I defend the claim that this walled garden has been broken, but I have to say that is not true. Many of the evidence pieces above show more that this garden is stronger.

NE2 is being bold in his edits and he has contributed exceptionally to Wikipedia, he has presented ideas via the talk page, but it seemed to me that those ideas were unfortunately met with resistance from the majority of active U.S. Roads editors. I have seen the discussions - but chose not to participate in them, but being the Channel Contact for #wikipedia-en-roads I have seen these very same users getting together to talk about these discussions and have been very disappointed that this channel was used for this. The channel should be for informal Q & A talk and simple conversation between members, not for bashing users and ideas behind Wikipedia's back and hiding consensus from the non-IRC users, and most certainly for formal consensus gathering - something that needs to be done in the project's talk page on Wikpedia.

I have bashed users such as NE2 myself in the past and now I realize the gravity of the situation and apologize. My wish is for the remaining members who do this to do the same. NE2, I do see that you have contributed greatly to the project, but you also have been pretty persistent in pushing past consensus. I agree there are times when we should Ignore all rules and be bold. I also agree that there needs to be consensus to make a decision. USRD does not own the articles. Whatever comes of this RFAR, I ask that we all work together to clean up our acts. — master son^{T - C} 04:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Recuse. Kirill 04:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mulling acceptance only because there seems to be a real problem with USRD. All three RfCs focused not just on NE2's behavior, but also on perceived problems with USRD's interaction with the rest of the encyclopedia. A linked diff above shows NE2 responding to a user who stated "All NE2 does is cause trouble." Mackensen (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per Mackensen concerns. The RFCs as well as the above statements indicate that a problem exists beyond one user. FloNight (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Problems seem to be more complicated than just one user. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BlueAzure

Initiated by HollywoodFan1 (talk) at 19:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

HollywoodFan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BlueAzure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[83]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Some of the steps I have taken prior to filing for arbitration (from most recent on top):

Statement by HollywoodFan1

User:BlueAzure has been WP:Stalk me, and a group of other editors in relation to a specific group of articles starting with a COI case he/she began under MetaphorEnt, December 9, 2007. Conflict on interest noticeboard When the case wasn't going where he/she wanted it to, they continued the harassment with a sockpuppet charge Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/64.30.201.109 which was closed because of "pure nonsense". BlueAzure has now put an Afd on an article I started and is listed in their original COIN case, which if you look at the Mimi Fuenzalida article history already had an Afd tag on it by a co-editor BlueAzure has been working closely with on Conflict on interest noticeboard , and the Afd was cleared by non-partisan editors. I believe User:BlueAzure may have something personally against the management company representing all of the talent listed in the COIN complaint and shouldn't be allowed to edit or tag any of the listed articles (BlueAzure "outed" the management company which doesn't even have any article written about them, or have any articles on WP where they are mentioned). I also would like BlueAzure to stay away from me and the articles I may edit in the future. For the record, I have no relationship to The management company. I am in a completely different business. I would like to continue to help create WP, but have been afraid to do anything beyond this mess, since this has all started.

Statement by BlueAzure

This request was improperly filed, as the COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt is still in progress and there has not been an RFC. I am concerned that this is an inappropriate attempt to stop the COI case. The actions referred to in HollywoodFan1’s statement were taken as part of resolving the various issues in the COI case and HollywoodFan1’s remedy would effectively block me from working on the COI case. BlueAzure (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Statement by HollywoodFan1

The COI case was opened Dec 9th. On Dec 19th an editor who does a lot of work on the COI board proposed to close the MetaphorEnt thread, which has remained open regardless of the fact that no more COI questions have come in to play. Instead BlueAzure has inappropriately used the COI board to advertise his sockpuppet proposal, Adf and now copy write issues. This is the exact reason I requested arbitration and hope to find a justifiable and peaceful resolution.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request by HollywoodFan1 regarding RFC vs. 3rd Opinion

Thank you for looking at this so quickly. User:BlueAzure has put three articles up for Afd, and one for immediate deletion and it's important that some sort of resolution is found before a large number of articles are deleted. Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment and WP:DR " If you need neutral outside opinions in a dispute involving only two editors, turn to Wikipedia:Third opinion." I did this. I will do an RFC if this is required in addition to the already posted third opinion. Please let me know what I should do next.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(Posting here because my term as an arbitrator doesn't officially start until Tuesday.) In answer to Hollywoodfan1's question, third opinion is most suited for situations where two editors disagree over something and another opinion might lead to a resolution. An article-content RfC is suited for more complicated disputes where outside users can post their thoughts on an issue. It is expected that the editors who filed the RfC would then take those views into account as they continue editing the article. A user-conduct RfC is a different procedure in which the behavior of a specific editor is considered; this is a more serious step and be sure to note the requirements listed on the RfC page. If the parties are willing, mediation might also be tried here. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reject as premature; please try a user conduct RFC before bringing this here. Kirill 18:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, per Kirill. RFArb is the last step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. FloNight (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lavvu

Initiated by Dinkytown (talk) at 06:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Dinkytown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) initiating party
Labongo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[84]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Request for Comment (History) RFChist
Request for Comment (Science) RFCsci
Failed discussion
Requests for Comment at Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
Failed Formal Mediation
Note: This debate has been going on continuously since October 14, 2007

Statement by Dinkytown

Issues

Traditional lavvu v. bell tent (a.k.a. single-pole "lavvu")

The issue is what should be inserted in the Lavvu page:

Dinkytown's position: the definition of the lavvu structure as defined by historical and academic sources, or;

Labongo position: the inclusion of a single-pole "lavvu" which has no historical reference as a lavvu, but has a long history as a Bell tent, which has only recently been promoted by a few tent manufacturers with the name of "lavvu" placed on it.

Reliable sources v. Commercial websites and blogs

Labongo has been inserting commercial links to website that have a significant conflict of interest with the Lavvu page, which is in conflict to Wikipedia Policy.

Can prove without any doubt that these commercial websites for this product are completely unreliable and can not be trusted as a reliable source.

Inclusion of a Comparative Product Table - a precedent for Wikipedia

Can provide evidence that Labongo has been trying to insert a table that would compare tent manufacturers' products with each other, which is outside the scoop of the article, and also in conflict with Wikipedia Policy.

Comments from other contributors

Can provide commentary from other contributors during the discussion period that conflict with Labongo's position.

Labongo's Behavior

Labongo's position has never been clear

Can provide documentation that Labongo's position is not only ambiguous, but also contradicting himself.

Erroneously placed NPOV and citation tags

Placed NPOV and Citation tags because it did not include POV from commercial advertisers

Inserted Spam into the page through the above mentioned table

Can provide evidence that Labongo frequently mentioned a specific manufacture’s name and website, contrary to Wikipedia Policy.

POV pushing and trolling

Can provide evidence that Labongo maintained a certain POV and refused to moderate or deviated from it which can be interpreted has Trolling, contrary to Wikipedia Policy.

Removed academic sources that he didn't like

Can provide evidence that Labongo removed sources that he admitted that he didn’t like without discussing it first on ‘discussion’ page.

Labongo was provided numerous 'offers' and concessions, but was not willing to compromise

Can provide evidence that numerous offers were provided to Labongo by several people and concessions made by me, but all were rejected by Labongo.

Labongo made assumptions of my position that I did not state, nor believed in

Can provide evidence that Labongo tried to discredit myself by claiming that I had 'assumptions', for which I never claimed.

Provided no reliable sources for his claims but has accused others of not having a NPOV

Labongo has never submitted any reliable sources to the article, and yet accused others of not having a NPOV, contrary to Wikipedia Policy.

Asking for Relief

I ask for the Arbitration Committee to take this case as I seek relief in this matter. Thank you. Dinkytown (talk) 06:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Labongo

I hope a request for arbitration is not necessary. But at the same time I hope some experienced editor would take an interest to resolve this issue. As you may see there have been many request for comments, but almost no answers.

From my point of view the issue(s) can be solved by applying WP:NPOV and WP:V.

Wikipedia cannot create definitions, and hence determine if something is or is not a cultural artifact. For the lavvu case there is no entity that has the authority to make such a definition, and hence we should describe any tent commonly known as a lavvu per WP:NPOV. This is the core of this issue.
I don't see a problem in using commercial whitepapers as source for “technical” specifications such as weight, height and so on. In addition some source for these specifications is necessary to satisfy WP:V. I believe dinkytown has for some reason got the idea that source from commercial sources are never allowed on Wikipedia.
Assumptions such as the single-pole lavvu is a Bell tent needs to be verifiable, since it is a statement that can be challenged. It is also necessary to provide sources for statements such as: “the single-pole “tent” is not a lavvu”, since this contradicts what is common knowledge at least in Scandinavia.
For the “comparative product table”, I have no idea why it is controversial to compare for example the weight of different tent designs (whether they are lavvu’s or not).
As for inserting spam (citations to commercial whitepapers), POV pushing (requiring that the article is written with a NPOV), removal of academic sources (a link to a paper I assume is something written by a student for a introductory course about the Sami), adding NPOV tags, adding citation-needed tags, trolling, being unclear, etc. I feel pretty confident that it can be shown that all these have been done in the interest of improving the article.

Labongo (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Reject, content dispute. Kirill 15:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, content. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject; content dispute. James F. (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject; as a content dispute out of our scope; as an editor conduct issue, the Community can deal with the concerns. Look for help of experienced editors or admins. FloNight (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to past Arbitration cases in this section. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. Place new requests at the top.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters#Parties urged

How does the arbitration committee recommend users not working collaboratively and constructively? The very complaint of the rfar was a lack of users working collaboratively and constructively. Users instead employed brute forcing their interpretations on guidelines (or alleged guidelines since the validity of the actual guideline is in dispute).

I am somewhat skeptical on how much this rfar resolved the dispute put before the arbitration committee.

-- Cat ^chi? 17:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for increased enforcement Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

A previous request by Thatcher131 was declined declined in April however the the pattern of disruption has continued, has been experienced by non-affiliated editors, and evidence of the disruption being due to the same editor using a succession of different accounts has been built up. Yes, the article has improved substantially due the input of editors with no association with the article subject, however the disruption is something the article, and other editors, could well do without. Relevant sockpuppet reports are [85] [86] [87].

The pattern of disruption usually involves editing with contempt for consensus, edit waring, taunting other editors based on their affiliation, incivility and ranting against the article subject. Strong enforcement of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:NOR and WP:CONS would effectively screen out the disruption.

I have tried using normal dispute resolution methods but this is getting tiring for me, other editors who have dropped by to help and also the admins that have to deal with the constant requests for help. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that there has been little to no "disruption" at all and this is just another preemptive strike by an individual that admits to be part of the organization in question, a new religious movements' called the BKWSU, own Internet PR Team; and is acting in accordance with the organization's PR aims. An individual that has invested a huge amount of time, effort and admins' energy in attempt to control the topic for his affiliated organization.

To state this for the sake of new admins coming to this issue is hardly "taunting". It is a statement of fact. I hope that eventually the Wikipedia admins will appreciate this for what it is. Simon has become incredibly skilled in his manipulation of Wikipedia admins and constructing accusations.

Let's look at the timing of this and the collusion of yet another BKWSU contributor, User:76.79.146.8. Bksimonb requests an early unprotection, User:76.79.146.8 reverts and accuses vandalism, attacks etc. Both complain to admins etc. Bksimonb puts RfA.

Putting aside the loaded and hysterical language, the seemingly endless accusations and complaints, if we look at the differences between the BKWSU's chosen version, the main differences are really;

the removal of weblink to an informed independent website that makes public and openly discusses the BKWSU's core teachings, the only independent website about the organization and one that the BKWSU's USA trust spent considerable amount of money attempting to recent silence via legal action and failed to do so.
the attempt to play down the centrality of channelling and mediumship to its practises. The channelling and mediumship of a spirit guide its followers are told is God and a centrality which illfits with its public face and political ambitions.
the instant removal and erasure of considerable time and effort made making neutral and beneficial formatting ... etc the 65 edits, here;[88].

Personally, I just want to get on and contribute to the Wikipedia. I am sick of being the target of these people. I know the subjects I edit on. I add form, content and provide citations. It gives me no pleasure to be continually subjected to wasting admin's time and constantly tripping over the stumbling blocks these people are persistently using in an attempt to exclude me.

I am happy to discuss this in detail and supply all the diffs that illustrate just exactly what Simon and the BKWSU are up to if required. but, frankly, the Wikipedia admins cannot see this for what it is by looking at nature and amount of complaints this individual has made, then I am afraid that I would wasting my time.

References;

Bksimonb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
76.79.146.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a remedy I am asking for strong enforcement of Wikipedia's policies. If this causes a problem then it is clear where that problem lies. I am not asking for unilateral enforcement. I am happy for the same rules to apply to me and other editors. It is clear from the above post that there is a strong bias against the BKWSU and a rather obvious attempt to discredit me and other editors based on our affiliation and non-agreement with the the above editor's own views. In the above post alone I am being accused, as if it were some indisputable fact, of "collusion", "PR", "preemptive strike", "manipulation" and censorship. In fact, I am most grateful for the above post as it clearly illustrates the problem. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the need for enforcement of Wikipedia's policies. In particular WP:COI where it states;

" Editing in the interests of public relations is particularly frowned upon. This includes, but is not limited to, edits made by public relations departments of corporations; or of other public or private for-profit or not-for-profit organizations; or by professional editors paid to edit a Wikipedia article with the sole intent of improving that organization's image."

BK Simon B is a member, if not leader, of the BKWSU Internet PR team. In fact, I think the correct title is "core Internet PR team". The Internet PR team of the organization in question. If Simon choses to deny this, here, then I am happy to provide evidence to support this assertion. He is and has been supported by other BK followers (BK is the title followers given themselves) and they also work together to suppress other internet source, e.g. they (Simon and other BK Wikipedia editors) recently acted in a failed attempt to close down an independent website via a domain name dispute. This is the same domain that BK Simon and the other BK contributors keep removing from the article; http://www.brahmakumaris.info.

I do not think it is fair that the Wikipedia's admins have their time used up protecting the PR interests of a new religious movement but that it is only in this context can we understand what is going on here.

The BKWSU has invests a considerable amount of money on its public face and generally keeps hidden from newcomers the more extreme elements of its beliefs, e.g.

the practise of mediumship or channelling of a spirit they claim is God himself via their mediums at the Indian headquarters
the belief is a 5,000 year Cycle of time that repeats identically
numerous failed predictions of the End of the World in which 6 Billion are meant to die so that 900,000 of their faithful followers will inherit a Golden Age heaven on earth (all, of course, backed up by independent, academic sources).
their historical revision and superiority as God's chosen religion

The last year or more has been one long war of attrition in which the BK followers, with varying degrees of finesse and investment in gaming the Wikipedia system, have attempt to distort the topic to hide these core, identifying elements to bring the topic inline with the 'vanilla' version presented on their websites. This gaming continues with a barrage of complaints, accusations, unfounded vituperative depending each time on some new admin or contributor not knowing the history and not knowing the organization.

I think it is wrong that the Wikipedia allows this waste of volunteers resources. I think this individual has made a disproportionate amount of complaints underling his and his organization's single intent ... which is to break the spirit of any informed, independent contributor and push their PR agenda. Even the Scientology article includes independent websites and external links. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just an outside view from a regular user, but the article is on probation and adding unnecessarily positive or negative stuff without reference to core policy seems to be against the terms of this. The remedy reads, "Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee", which both sides appear to have done in the section above. Also in Principles: "Users with a deep personal involvement with a subject who edit in a disruptive, aggressive biased manner may be banned from editing the affected article or articles, per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest." User:Bksimonb has a self-declared conflict of interest, and per WP:COI as cited in the arbitration, needs to consider whether the edits are promoting his organisation, or promoting the interests of Wikipedia. I can't tell exactly what has been added by the user, but I made a reverse diff of Lucy's revert which gives some clue as to what matters are under dispute. The article was reverted to the pre-Lucy version and immediately full-protected by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry on 26 December 2007. I am unsure at this stage whether User:Lucyintheskywithdada also has a conflict of interest in the opposite direction - user commenced editing on 21 December 2007 and, strangely, their main edits have not been focused on this article. However, their reference to the BKWSU Internet Team in their very first edit to the page suggests they may be a historic participant in the dispute. Orderinchaos 08:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have a go at trying to get this one on track - it does seem to have rather gone off the rails. If Wikipedia policies were strictly enforced here it would be necessary to ban everybody involved, which while resulting in peace and a complete end to edit warring on the article, would certainly not be a desirable outcome. Strict enforcement of the rules before has led to a situation where it appears the article overly favours one side, is far from encyclopaedic and needs a lot of sourcing. I'm acting purely as a content editor and negotiator with no past history and no particular views on the subject, and am quite happy to defer to arbitrators on any matter. Orderinchaos 09:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orderinchaos. Although I obviously find some of your initial assessment challenging the important thing for me is that you are prepared to work with us, and I really appreciate that. As far as COI issues are concerned I have tried my best to act within limits and leave the most drastic edits to outside editors who have dropped by. I appreciate that it probably doesn't look that way without a detailed analysis of the article history and talk archives. I don't expect you to do that so I'll just take it all on the nose for now knowing that everything will transpire in it's own time if you stick around. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Clarification of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

The remedy states that To address the extensive edit-warring that has taken place on articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets, any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The administrator shall notify the user on his or her talkpage and make an entry on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Log of blocks, bans, and probations. The terms of probation, if imposed on any editor, are set forth in the enforcement ruling below. During the case itself, a discussion arose on the Proposed Decision page, that no arbitrator took part in, but consensus of the discussion was that the definition of "uninvolved" was for not being involved in "edit-warring or disruptive editing", since there was no finding in the ArbCom case that ANY administrator had been non-neutral.

Previously, myself and Tyrenius (who were both parties to the ArbCom) have used this remedy to try to keep folks calm, with no peep of protest. Now, three weeks after User:Aatomic1 was placed on a one-month probation by administrator User:Alison, User:Aatomic1 has attempted to remove himself from the terms of probation, because Alison was one of the parties who provided evidence and discussion for the case. This came after Aatomic1 attempted to incite an admin who WAS in an edit war with User:Domer48 to place "That troll" (ie Domer) on its terms. Could the ArbCom please clarify this remedy, as to whom may place it, and if my definition is correct? SirFozzie (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The probation should remain in place. For purposes of this case, Alison was not an involved admin and she remains uninvolved as far as I can tell. Meaning that she has not been involved in edits disputes with the user or about these articles. We need admin to become "involved" as Alison did. Meaning that they learn about conflicts, bring them to ArbCom for rulings, and apply sanctions as needed when cases close. I think that is what Alison did and so the probation should remain. FloNight (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On this basis, then, I will withdraw from the voluntary recusal I placed myself under, after a probation violation warning was issued to one party and a raft of protesters argued that as a named party I was an "involved" admin. Rockpocket 00:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Involved" for the purposes of enforcement could mean that if you edit war with another user on articles A and B, you should not impose a sanction on article C, even if you haven't edited that article. However, learning about a dispute and trying to help settle it, and taking action when needed, is not really involvement. Thatcher131 01:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my understanding too, however our-soon-to-be-newest Arb appeared to have a different opinion. [89] Note that "heavily involved in the earlier disputes" equates to being one of the admins who attempted to deal with earlier disputes. Rockpocket 01:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's always a judgment call, and a balancing: We don't want editors to believe they are being treated unfairly, but neither do we want to multiply the opportunities for forum shopping. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, is to be assumed that all "uninvolved admin" rulings (e.g. Digwuren) should be interpreted in this way? Will ^(talk) 01:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a clerk I always find that "uninvolved" in this case means that you have a neutral opinion on the subject. (Like, I would not touch anything related to Chinese politics with a 10' pole.) You cannot pass judgment on anyone without learning why, and if we become "involved", we'd never get anything done. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will, if you apply a remedy and the target thinks you are too involved, he can appeal to WP:AE, WP:ANI, or email the Arbcom. Remedies applied by one admin can be lifted by another for good cause like any other admin action, although as with reversing any other action, discussion and consultation beforehand is a good thing. If you do end up dropping the hammer on someone you shouldn't, someone will let you know one way or the other. Thatcher131 02:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. And I don't mean to give the impression that any admin should reserve an absolute right to be the one to take action (sometimes its better to step back to avoid even the appearance of a COI). My concern is simply that this does leave open an avenue in which editors who are under ArbCom remedies could take out of the equation the very admins that are most familiar with their MO in an effort to further a disruptive agenda. It is a balance, but as we saw from the reversing of Ty's block, the community has in place mechanisms that provides it without asking those with previous experience to recuse themselves on principle. This is especially important in complex and long running cases, where entirely "uninvolved" admins would not have a clue what was going on.

On a personal note, I felt particularly aggrieved by this suggestion, because I was the one who volunteered to provide the evidence about a particular editor in this case, and as a result I was the one targeted (by an entire lobby) as the person with the vendetta. I could easily have stood back and let someone else provide the evidence, but didn't consider it an issue at the time. As it stood, I was not planning to provide any more evidence to future cases, lest the same accusations be leveled against me. I'd feel much more confidence in contributing to the arbitration process if I felt that my evidence as an admin who tried to enforce our policies was not codified as being an involved in the problem. Rockpocket 03:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would a neutral observer think, by your actions or the way you presented evidence, that you had taken sides? Or are you presenting yourself as a neutral party trying to resolve ongoing conflicts? If so, you probably should not take enforcement action. If not, then there should not be a problem. Complaints from the people you have sanctioned is routine. Try the Armenia-Azerbaijani dispute. I respond to a large majority of the reports and I'm pretty sure neither side has much liked my responses. Thatcher131 03:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware no neutral observer has ever suggested any of the admins involved have taken sides, though plenty have said that its best of avoid it looking that way. Well, when the lobbies (on both sides) are doing their damnedest to make it look that way, then we have a problem. So what happens is one editor complains loudly when an admin takes action, within (literally) minutes the other members of the lobby pile on with the same complaint. The neutral observer sees a number of editors in agreement and suggests you should probably not make the enforcement action if only to avoid the perception of bias. QED, the lobby has got exactly what they want. So the "involved" admins probably do inflame the situation, but thats because its in the interests of those people who are under remedy to cause the inflammation. I see this as a real and ongoing problem. The obvious answer is to have other admins take over, but quite frankly, requests for outside eyes in this sort of lengthy, simmering and bitter dispute come to nothing, no-one wants to touch it - and you can hardly blame them. Rockpocket 05:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't intended to be obtuse or confusing. If you are part of the problem, you should not be the one to impose the remedy. I think this is clear from the current Matthew Hoffman case where Adam is under review for blocking editors whose edits he opposed for content reasons, even though he did not edit the exact article in dispute but did edit other articles in the broad topic. However, if you step into a situation to try and resolve it peacefully, and maintain your objectivity, and find that one party or both needs to be sanctioned, you probably can do it. Editors should not feel that they are being taken advantage of by their opponents who happen to have a sysop bit, but at the same time, disruptive editors should not be able to game the system and forum shop by claiming that every admin who tries to resolve a situation in a neutral way is now too tainted by involvement to make a fair judgement call on sanctions. Thatcher131 03:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we need administrator to become knowledgeable about the situation in order to make clueful decisions. There should be no problem with monitoring a situation over time to make sure is properly resolved. Keeping articles on a watchlist and stepping in to calm down edit wars is a good use of admin time. FloNight (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election

While merging the list at Wikipedia:Article probation into Wikipedia:General sanctions, I noticed that this 2006 case needs a review. The article probation remedy stated:

Articles which are the locus of dispute, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Proposed decision#Locus of dispute, are placed on probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, incivilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and will review the situation in one year.

The one year review was due in July 2007, but apparently has not been done yet. After looking at the edit histories of these articles, I recommend that article probation be lifted for some, but not all of the articles. In particular, I noticed recent editing disputes at 2004 United States presidential election controversy, vote suppression, and several of the articles still have neutrality disputed tags. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that we will conduct a review of all the currently active general sanctions in January, once the new arbitrators are on board. Kirill 15:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested motions to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

I request that the Committee consider the following motions. It is not clear where request for motions in a prior cases ought be placed, so could the clerks move this to the right spot if this is not it. Thanks. Martintg (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: I have moved these requests to the "requests for clarifications" section as probably the best place for them. I agree with Marting that it is not clear from the instructions where a request for relief from a prior decision should be posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee will be discussing these motions soon-ish. They have move toward the top of our To-do-list. FloNight (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of bans for both User:Digwuren and User:Petri Krohn

It is now obvious, after an initial bit of confusion and subsequent clarification, that the remedy 11 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction will be most effective in combating incivility, which was the core issue of this case. No one was calling for year long bans for either party in the original case, in fact most involved and uninvolved were explicitly against any ban, as Alex Bakharev succinctly argued here and seconded by many others including Geogre and Biophys in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Remedies_are_too_harsh. Note too that Digwuren did make a reflective and conciliatory statement aplogising to those he had wronged and forgiving those who had wronged him Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Statement_by_Digwuren. Compare this to the recently banned Anonimu, where there was a clear concensus for a ban and he was defiant and un-remorseful to the end.

While a year is a long time, and shortening it may be useful, I'd like to see those users expressing remorse, telling us what they have learned and promising not to continue behavior that led to their ban before any shortening or suspension of a ban is considered.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no point in banning these editors, especially Petri, who unlike Digwuren, even sincerely apologized long before the case and was still punished for his actions taken prior to the apology, unlike Digwuren who continued to create "occupation" badwagons, revert war and bait contributors even while his arbitration was ongoing. Still, as far as Digwuren is concerned, I neither proposed nor supported a year-long ban. I have a very thick skin towards incivility and this aspect of his conduct did not bother me much. But if he is unblocked, he must be on the short leash regarding the number of reverts and coatracking.

Overall, I think that case needs a new hearing in light of how editors see it now in the retrospect and by the hopefully wisened up ArbCom as well. Also, there were several new developments, chiefly, editors using the "editing restrictions" to blockshop and vigorously "investigate" each other. This whole matter needs a fresh look, perhaps by a renewed Arbcom after the election which is almost over.

I would object to selective reversals of the original decision. The case was handled badly in a hands-off-by-ArbCom-type way during the entire precedings. Selective return of Digwuren and doing nothing else would just make matters worse. Rehashing that decision overall may be a good thing and hearing all parties in an orderly way by the arbitrators who actually listned and engage would be a good thing though. --Irpen 19:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the involved parties had findings of fact regarding revert warring. The differentiating aspect for Digwuren and Petri Krohn was using Wikipedia as a battleground. Note that the root cause of this battle was the Bronze soldier controversy, which has now largely resolved itself, the threat for further battling has significantly diminished. Also given that bans are in principle intended to stop further damage to Wikipedia, rather for retribution and punishment for its own sake, and they have already served some months of this ban, I see no reason to continue this ban, particularly since there seems a concensus against a ban in the first place, the parties have shown remorse as I have linked above and the Bronze soldier issues have dissipated. I am not asking for selective reversals, just a suspension. Martintg (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strike User:Erik Jesse, User:3 Löwi and User:Klamber from the Involved parties list

These people were offline long before the case even started, never participated in the case, and continue to be offline to this day. No or little evidence was presented against them and no finding of fact either. In fact they had absolutely no involvement in the issues of this case and were only mentioned because they were included in an earlier checkuser case. Note however it is a finding of fact that Petri Krohn used Wikipedia as a battleground, and the checkuser case against these and other Estonian users was a part of that warfare. We don't want to perpetuate this wrong against these three editors.

Therefore I ask ArbCom to amend the case such that their names are struck from the list of involved parties and thus the notices removed from their talk pages. In fact I made a similar motion to this effect Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Motion_to_strike_3_L.C3.B6wi_and_Klamber_from_the_list_of_parties during the case and it was seconded by the clerk Cbrown1023 at the time. I know it is a minor issue, but it is an important gesture that ArbCom ought to do to further heal the hurts and encourage them to return, particularly User:3 Löwi who has been an editor of good standing since 2005.

Expand definition of "uninvolved admin" in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction

The principle of involved admins not being permitted to issue blocks is founded on the issue of conflict of interest and that trust should be maintained in the impartiality of the blocking admin. Generally "involved" means personal involvement in the immediate issue or article. However, given that the span of this general restriction covers all of Eastern Europe, and the principle that trust should be maintained in the blocking admin's impartiality, and that political issues (the role of the Soviet Union and communism) is the basis for much of the conflict on Eastern Europe; the definition of "involved" should be expanded for this remedy to include admins with overt and obvious political view points or past significant involvment in content disputes within Eastern Europe

The recent episode concerning blocks issued by El_C illustrates this problem. An admin with a "vanity page" consisting of figures associated with communist oppression and terrorism wades into a dispute involving Eastern Europe, not only is this highly provocative, but alarm bells start ringing as to the impartiality of this admin. Note that this is same admin saw no problem with the behaviour of the recently banned Anonimu, uncivilly branding those who brought the complaint as "ethno-nationalist editors". This fact of questionable impartiality and lack of trust only served to inflame the situation resulting a commited and significant editor and wikiproject coordinator Sander Säde to leave the project.

While one must endeavour to assume good faith, never the less, there would be an issue of trust in the judgement of an admin if, to illustrate with an example, they had a vanity page consisting of images of Osama bin Ladin and Hezbollah on their user page wading in and handing out blocks in a dispute regarding Israeli related topic. Common sense dictates that controversial admins of questionable partiality should not be involved enforcing this remedy.

Good point, but it all boils down to the issue of anonymity. El C at least declares some of his POV on his user page. I, for example, declare quite a few more things. Would you prefer to trust a user who declares nothing? How can we be sure if such declarations are truthful, and not ironic or simply deceptive? Looking back at the Essjay controversy I still think all admins should be required to reveal their identity, education, and POVs... but I am well aware this will not fly. I think "uninvolved admin" should be one that is accepted by the parties; but of course that creates a possibility for the parties to evade judgment by refusing to accept any admin as uninvolved. Perhaps to avoid that but deal with the problem you outlined, we should have a procedure parties can lodge complains about admin's involvement, where this could be reviewed by other admins and if involvement is determined (something like CoI), the admin's action is reverted and warning issued? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

Motions

Shortcuts

This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions.

Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives.

Make a motion (Arbitrators only)

You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

@@ Line 151: / Line 151: @@
 *Merkinsmum, technically I suppose I should have no problem with SandyGeorgia "airing her opinions" of me, as long as she takes scrupulous care to  adhere to the full facts as known to her, and expresses opinion as opinion and as long as I have an equal right to air my opinions of her at will, without censure, however, I do not think that trying to invoke such a right equally will ever resolve this problem, nor do I think it is necessary or advisable to the development of Wikipedia as a whole. I think we both need to stop talking about, and forget the existence of, each other, and that might not be a bad general rule, either? --[[User:Zeraeph|Zeraeph]] ([[User talk:Zeraeph|talk]]) 03:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
-====Statement by uninvolved [[User:Durova|Durova]] ====
+====Statement by [[User:Durova|Durova]] ====
 SandyGeorgia is a longstanding Wikipedian with a stellar record.  Zaraeph - however sincere she might be - has a history that is extremely spotty and has been unable to substantiate her repeated and extreme accusations with anything resembling adequate evidence.  This is not the kind of situation that ought to need arbitration, and Sandy has stated repeatedly that this proposal is the opposite of her desires.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASandyGeorgia&diff=180824412&oldid=180823994][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=180771410&oldid=180771382][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=180732204&oldid=180732187]  Most poignantly, ''Enough. I lost all evening at FAC and tomorrow I'll be behind. This is nothing but an insult, and worse, from someone who should know what it feels like.''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=180774093&oldid=180774077]  I urge the Committee to reject this request and likewise urge certain Wikipedians to withdraw from a situation where their interference is counterproductive and unwelcome. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 :With regard to LessHeardvanU's statement, it is a [[straw man argument]] to insinuate that my statement refers to block records only.  Read the above: I never mention either party's block history.  SandyGeorgia is one of this Wikipedia's 100 most prolific contributors with a long and honorable history of congenial service to the project.  Zaraeph has come into conflict with multiple people and has a consistent history of personal attacks and edit warring.  Attempts to construe this as some sort of two sided dispute are based upon two factors:
@@ Line 158: / Line 158: @@
 :<font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 21:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
-====Statement by listed [[User:Mikkalai|Mikkalai]] ====
+====Statement by [[User:Mikkalai|Mikkalai]] ====
 I support the opinion of Durova that this case is not for ArbCom. The issue is clean and simple and covered by the corresponding policy, which may be invoked by any admin. Both sides must state clearly that they will refrain from attacks on each other in article talk pages and discuss '''article content only'''. I blocked user:Zeraeph for longer time for their aggressive behavior in "[[Psychopathy]]" and [[Talk:Psychopathy]] and strongly warned user:Mattisse to stop waging the chaotic war however justified it may me. I also told user:Zeraeph that I will unblock them if Seraeph promises to discuss article content only, rather than editor's personality. This was met with flat refusal. Later user:SlimVirgin unblocked user:Zeraeph and I see a rather normal pattern of editing in [[Psychopathy]]. I would advice both parties to "forgive and forget", remember that people are not ideal, give each other some slack, and limit themselves to discussing content rather than each other. If there is no agreement as to content, the proper way is to involve other wikipedians rather than beat each other on heads.
@@ Line 222: / Line 222: @@
 :Just to add to Marskell's point above that talks are continuing at AN, there has been no resolution and the discussion has been archived. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#Unblock_of_Zeraeph] <font color="Purple">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font><font color="Green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|(contribs)]]</font></sup></small> 00:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
-====Statement by very-slightly-involved-in-the-past-on-the-periphery [[User:Casliber|Casliber]]====
+====Statement by [[User:Casliber|Casliber]]====
 I too agree that the situation needs to be dealt with by the ArbCom. The AN debate became (has become?) a malignant juggernaut of text drawing further people and bad will into it. I only came across the aftermath late yesterday and was highly dismayed by what I saw. The whole debate needs to be structured and investigated systematically due to the amount of evidence needed to be sifted through. As someone who works in mental health I have seen what Zeraeph has contributed to [[psychopathy]] and [[Asperger syndrome]], there has been some valuable input in both cases. However that is combined with an at times explosive difficulty to negotiate with others for various reasons. Therefore the value of her contributions has to be weighed against the other issues systematically. I haven't the inclination to wade through the mountain of evidence to determine the proportion of blame though I am concerned about ongoing conflicts and fear they will recur. Over to you arbcom. cheers,  [[User:Casliber|Casliber]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Casliber|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 01:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
-====Statement by relatively uninvolved Orderinchaos====
+====Statement by Orderinchaos====
 I am largely seconding points made by Casliber, Jeffpw, Durova and Marskell here. In my experience, SandyGeorgia is a stellar contributor and one of the most approachable people on standards for FAC. Given my first interaction with her was a potential conflict, and was resolved very amicably at least in part due to her approach to the situation (was a situation where I mistakenly called her out for something on which she turned out to be right). At a recent dispute on [[Talk:South Australian general election, 2006]], she handled an irrationally hostile editor who took exception to some of her article improvement suggestions by backing away and giving it time (you can see some of the conversation between me and her on this on her talk page). While I have no specific knowledge of the particular conflict here, I have no reason to believe she would be so markedly different from the person I have come to know, and the other named statements and those of others appear to support this analysis. On reading some of the diffs and evidence, I don't believe SlimVirgin's undoing of the ban was either warranted or particularly wise - while not done in a way which breached policy, in general undoing the actions of others, especially when one does not appear to be in possession of all of the facts, is ill-advised and has been warned against by the Committee in previous judgements. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 02:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
-====Commentbeh by uninvolved kaypoh====
+====Commentbeh by kaypoh====
 What I think is that someone (not SandyGeorgia) stalked Zeraeph but she thought SandyGeorgia is the stalker, and the way SandyGeorgia talks about Zeraeph makes her more scared. ArbCom needs to handle this. I suggest that you ban SandyGeorgia from talking about Zeraeph and ban Zeraeph from talking about SandyGeorgia, so they will leave each other alone and contribute to Wikipedia without worrying about stalking. --[[User:Kaypoh|Kaypoh]] ([[User talk:Kaypoh|talk]]) 03:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
-====Comment by semi-involved CeilingCrash====
+====Comment by CeilingCrash====
 I think Arbcom should look at this issue.   While SG has no shortage of glimmering testimonials to produce here, it is behavior and not reputation that should be considered.   I, for one, have encountered SandyGeorgia in the Asperger's article and found her to be a '''highly''' unwelcoming bully who is not willing to form consensus nor to regard the five pillars.  I explicitly made this complaint against her - with specific examples - in the Talk section, which SG was quick to archive off the main talk page and away from view.  You may view it here -
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive17#The_smoking_gun_:_Baron-Cohen.2C_POV_Bias
@@ Line 253: / Line 254: @@
 (updated w/ corrections) [[User:CeilingCrash|CeilingCrash]] ([[User talk:CeilingCrash|talk]]) 22:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
-====comment by relatively uninvolved Merkinsmum====
+====comment by Merkinsmum====
 I've not been much involved in this dispute but when Mattisse and Zeraeph were rowing, [[User:SandyGeorgia]] was airing her opinion to Mattisse and others on her talk page about Zeraeph's personality etc, based on her previously established prejudices, when it was a dispute between Z and M in which she wasn't remotely involved.  It reminded me a little of behaviour I've seen a certain user demonstrate against Matisse (not Z, someone else)- whenever Matisse is in an argument this user has to tell everyonne what a rotter Mattisse is.  We also shouldn't judge people unequally based on their number of edits, but try and look at this particular case.  Personally I have not had a good impression of User:SandyGeorgia, she thinks 'she knows best' and is revert-happy rather than talking to other editors, which is rude. [[User:Merkinsmum|<b><font color="orange">Merkinsmum</font></b>]] 03:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)