Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:30, 18 March 2009

WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review (WP:RREV).

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
Wikipediocracy-related conduct		21 October 2024	4/1/2
Marine 69-71		26 October 2024	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Obama presidency POV warring

Initiated by Ste vertigo 04:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Stevertigo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Grsz11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wikidemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dank55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bobblehead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Many other parties involved to a lesser degree

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Barack_Obama/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama - Stevertigo started a working draft subpage of a "criticism of" article, to develop an NPOV article. Was nominiated for AFD (below) which was changed by User:Dank55 to speedy and deleted, closing AFD discussion.
- Template:Barack_Obama/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama - Stevertigo created this template for transclusion of above draft on Talk:Barack Obama, for community visibility, access, and development.
WP:AFD/Barack_Obama/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama - AFD discussion interrupted by spe
WP:DRVL#Barack_Obama.2FCriticism_of_Barack_Obama - a review of the change of an AFD in discussion to "speedy", nullifying the AFD discussion.
WP:ANI#Stevertigo/Obama topic ban - an attempted topic ban, filed by Sceptre, which failed to find support
WP:ANI#Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ - Stevertigo, reporting on disputes at the Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ (history) page. Example diff.
WP:ANI#User:Tarc and User:Grsz11 on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 15 - Stevertigo reports on the deletion of a comment, first by Tarc (diff), and repeated by others.
WP:ANI#Moving WP:AN/I section #Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ by User:Grsz11 - Stevertigo files this report on Grsz11's impoper move of the WP:ANI##Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ thread from ANI bottom to near ANI top, including it with WP:ANI#Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ - a much older, unsuccessful, and nearly-closed thread.
- Note: This thread ~~too was for some reason deleted - can't yet find the diff/who did it~~ was deleted by MiszaBot II. history).

Incidents: Discussion comment deletions and possible wikistalking by Grsz, Sceptre, Wikidemon, and Tarc. Personal attacks characterizing my edits as "POV" "disruptive" and "trolling" are common. Grsz and Sceptre have used more uncivil language.

WP:ATA - Sceptre, NPA "trolling"
WP:ATA - characterized as "disruptive"
WT:IAR - Sceptre, "DNFTT"
WT:IAR Wikidemon - "close trolling discussion"
- Note: The WT:IAR deletions removed other user comments. This is not the only case where Wikidemon claims powers to unilaterally "close" a thread.
UT:Stevertigo - Grsz - "no. this is my comment and you have no right to change it. if you dont want it there, remove it all together but stop fucking with my comments"
- Note: Grsz has found it perfectly acceptible to "f*** with [Stevertigo's] comments", but decries the renaming of an attack comment on the attacked user's own talk page.
UT:Stevertigo - Wikidemon restores his unnecessary comment on Stevertigo's talk page.
Obama-Ayers - Sceptre reverts major edits.
Obama-Ayers - Stevertigo "moved Bill Ayers presidential election controversy to [[[Obama-Ayers association controversy]]: Ayers had no "presidential election" controversy, as he is was not running for such office. Note "Presidential," would be capitalized as such, but was not...[cutoff]...because such would draw attention to the problem with the (current) name"
Obama/FAQ - Bobblehead reverted an edit that explained both sides of the site-wide and article debate surrounding the use of "criticism of" sections/articles.
WP:ANI - Sceptre, archives the discussion early. This after Grsz had already moved the section from a new position to an old position, as part of the older "Stevertigo topic ban" thread (which was failing).

Statement by Stevertigo

User:Stevertigo, a 7th-year editor with nearly 35K edits, is said by various above users to be "POV," "disruptive," 'not abiding by consensus,' "trolling," "troll-baiting" "forum-shopping" violating WP:CIVIL, NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:AGF, WP:TE, and WP:NOCRIT (a much-alluded-to but not-existing policy) etc. This RFAR follows several policy/DR discussions/threads, (above) and was begun under the impression that some of the above charges may in fact be not true. Methods by which above editors claimed to enforce policy include:

deleting edits, deleting talk comments, personal attacks, personal characterizations, POV pushing, making threats, using swear words, ignoring opposing arguments, being unreasonable, early closing discussion threads, citing policy that doesn't exist...

All of course in the spirit of Wikipedia.

Stevertigo's response to Slrubenstein

I really had a good time reading this. Slrubenstein is indeed one of our most "Uninvolved" editors. I counted above three different references to my now infamous 'RFAR threat', but lost track when I tried to count his usage of a particularly scholarly epithet. (Is it really an epithet or is it an adjective? Hm.) Indeed, Slr referred to my arguments on Talk:Language using the same.. language... though we eventually made progress. I wrote:

"I'm pleased to find that the current version is different from the version which you (Slr, Andrew) previously defended. I'm glad you understand that that previous version was incorrect, unusable, and maybe even substandard. I only wish it hadn't taken most of a week and most of the talk page to make you both realize you were defending the indefensible: not just the article version, but the very concept you were operating under that Wikipedia articles are fine just the way they are, and don't require actual improvement."

Note that I let the 'Antisemitism may (occasionally) be used as an epithet' issue go (then), because in part I won that argument at Talk:AS#Threefold approach, and wanted to let that loss sink in with Slrubenstein and the other party. To my last comment there, there was only a silent response from both contesting parties, notably the respectable academic above. If my final argument there was indeed "cattle excrement," he would have finished me off. He did not because he could not. If he does have an actual response to it, he can of course answer it now. I did not make any further change to the article, as their silent agreement would have suggested, because I knew their silence only meant they couldn't come up with a reasonable answer, and any change I made to the antisemtism article would have been reverted; even though they capitulated on the talk page. With that all out of the way, I must say I wasn't altogether too interested in the subject anymore; for one, any discussion of Antisemitism will often involve Nazis; antisemitism is unpleasant enough as a subject, any way you look at it, to deal with too much; and Lord I really hate Nazis.

Note that Slrubenstein complains that I mark most edits as minor. This is set in my preferences, and sometimes I forget to uncheck the box when I make larger edits. I am indeed sorry. But why is Slrubenstein so annoyed by this? Recent wikistalking behavior on his part provides a possible answer (contributions); minor edits don't show up on his watchlist maybe? Why haven't I reported him? Because I know from experience that the Arbcom just doesn't want to hear it, discussions using the wiki CMS model are obtuse and hard to deal with dynamically anyway, and WP:DR itself is in need of some (reorganization/revitalization). -Ste vertigo 16:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stevertigo response to Grsz11

Note Grsz11 describes how 1) "multiple editors request[ed] a[n] Obama topic-ban for Steve," and adds that this was filed 2) "mostly before he picked up his disruption." Which sort sums up these affairs quite nicely. -Ste vertigo 18:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grsz wrote: "please move your comment." Eh. I kind of like it where it is, Grsz. Is that alright with you? In fact I'm quite unaccustomed to having my comments "moved" or even "removed" by anyone else, let alone myself. -Ste vertigo 19:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rootology

I'd only be barely called involved in this (if that, my comments on ANI the past day aside) but I loiter often on the main Obama talk page. Urge acceptance to look at the behavior of all the people involved (NOT just the named parties), and to ask that some real teeth be put into the probations here for the articles. Note this has received odious media coverage/trolling from far-right websites like WorldNetDaily. Before anyone says "RFC", the Arbs included, just look at the history Steve conveniently laid out here. Any RFC on this would be the same discussion(s) all over again, super-amplified through the stench-amplifying power of a User RFC, and just leave people even more embittered. A full RFAR will at least let everyone air their disputes mutually, with an end in the end that will allow the rest of the project to not let this spill over the edges into everything else daily from BLPN to AN to AE to ANI to $RANDOM_PAGE. For the Cliff's Notes version of the disputes (you need a scorecard for all of it) read this link here and then just peruse all of that ANI page for the word "Obama". That section is textbook; any forward progress goes instantly off the rails with crazed political bickering by long-standing editors. If this drags on, the community will not be able to deal with it unless someone totally melts down and goes nuclear. rootology (C)(T) 06:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to FayssalF I urge the scope to be the overall editing/behavior of all named parties, **NOT** limited to one subject area. Treat it as a behavioral RFAR. rootology (C)(T) 16:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by bystander roux

Wikipedia should have no place for POV pushing. Get rid of it now, and take a hard line against those who try. Accept the case, evaluate whether POV has been pushed, and act accordingly.

Statement by (possibly involved?) Wikidemon

The only involvement I have is that I am a frequent editor in articles, talk pages, and policy pagest this editor has chosen to disrupt. As such I have seen the disruption and sometimes attempted to keep things under control.

The editor has clearly been involved in over-the-top, wild, disruption of a lot of article, policy, talk, and meta pages. Nevertheless, I wonder why this is here before ArbComm. Couldn't this thing be dealt with simply as a routine behavioral problem subject to blocking and (likely) a topic ban? Only if the community cannot deal with this would it be an arbitration issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is there any way we can give a more neutral title to this request? - Wikidemon (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on scope of case. What remedies are under consideration here? If ArbComm endorses the community article probation scheme as a whole what does that resolve? If it rejects it, can ArbCom replace it with something better? Stevertigo's disruption is a simple, obvious administrative matter that would involve extensive evidence gathering and argumentation in the context of an Arbcom case. Multiply that by dozens of other accounts engaging in POV edits, and dozens more editors on article patrol, and a broad ArbComm case is a huge investment in time to fix something that seems to be working.

Whatever its flaws, article probation works. It was instituted last fall in response to extensive disruption from different corners. Terms are simple: stay civil, don't edit war, respect BRD / 1RR consensus gathering, and use talk pages for their intended purpose. Key to article probation is that someone has to actually enforce it. Administrators have been cautious and let things go for a while before acting. The front line is a large crew of non-administrative editors (of which I am one) who have issued notices and cautions, managed the talk pages, reverted vandalism and nonconsensus edits, and bring emerging problems to the attention of administrative notice boards. They fulfill a function administrators cannot, because they incur the inevitable counter-accusations in response, and thereby become involved parties - administrators have to stand back and act only when needed, lest their attempts to stabilize articles be seen as participation in a POV battle.

Under article probation 108 editors received official notice of probation terms, 27 accounts have been blocked or banned for disruption, and another 60 for trolling, vandalism, and sockpuppetry (see Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation#Log of sanctions). The actual numbers are probably higher, because some actions are not on the list. Notable among the enforcement actions, a core of accounts had claimed the article was a whitewash for not duly reporting derogatory claims raised by his critics and opponents (e.g. non-US citizen, stole the election, hiding his birth certificate, friend of terrorists, closet communist/socialist/muslim). They edit warred and complained accordingly, became adept at gumming up administrative process to try to deal with them, and when they did not get their way or suffered an occasional block they accused Wikipedia of being a censorious liberal cabal of Obama supporters who hijacked the article and reverted or blocked editors who dared speak the WP:TRUTH. What they called a whitewash is just consensus at work; and what they called a cabal is simply Wikipedia's behavior enforcement. In the end, most of these accounts were found to be sockpuppets of the notorious User:BryanFromPalatine.

Things were relatively stable for months after the socks departed until a couple weeks ago, when a now-blocked sock/meatpuppet/COI account associated with real-world journalist Aaron Klein provoked a block by deliberately disrupting the Obama article, then wrote a deceptively misleading article about it in World Net Daily that got picked up and then debunked by mainstream press. Accounts new and old flocked in again to purge Wikipedia of its supposed cabal and its liberal bias, behaving like rebels trying to overthrow a despotic ruler, on more or less the same theory BryanFromPalatine raised during the election. Although tedious and troublesome, this new group is no worse than we have dealt with before. I see nothing that cannot be handled under the current article probation regime. We cannot make an ArbComm case every time a disgruntled editor gets sanctioned or, as in this case, preemptively tries to avoid sanctions by accusing his accusers. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sceptre

I urge the arbitration committee to rapidly reject this and sanction Steve in an administrative capacity. Regardless of his tenure (I've been here four years and have around fifty-five thousand edits, doesn't make me any less disruptive if I do decide one day to be), Steve is just basically trolling because his POV-ridden article got deleted. At the very least, Steve's recent actions on DRV, ANI, WT:IAR, and the Obama talk pages are cause enough to sanction him even if the community probation on Obama didn't exist. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Uninvolved User Slrubenstein

One sign of WP:DE is disruptive editing across a variety of articles. This is the case with Stevertigo. If you sample any fifty edits, you will discover many minor edits, but at least as many edits that involve changes of content. Stevertigo will regularly claim these to be minor edits, because he claims he is changing the wording to increase clarity. Whether the new wording is clearer is debatable, but not the real issue. The real issue is that his wording actually changes the meaning. Now, if Stevertigo had researched the topic and discussed his edits with other people working on the page, this might not be a problem. But he never begins on the talk page, asking people why the current wording is as is, or what others think of a change in wording - he just makes his edits (perhaps the sign of a POV-pusher). What concerns me most is that he refuses to do any research! Imagine - at an encyclopedi, doing no research! The result is a consistent pattern of violating WP:NOR.

On the few occassions that he pretends to do research, well I am sorry but the results can only be called bullshit. The perfect example is this]. The Hebrew word Ehud has no relation to the Hebrew word Yehudi. No scholar claims that it does. Stevertigo proposes an entirely bogus etymology, with links, and a lot of flibbledy-flabbeldy jargon that to an uninformed eye would make Stevertigo a qualified linguist. One would have to know the basics of linguistics and Hebrew to know that this is pure bullshit, that the claims he makes about Hebrew are bullshit, that the claims he makes about language are bullshit. There is no other word for it. He made his claim, and I called it bullshit and kept calling it bullshit until he backed down. I didn't bully him - I just called him out, repeatedly demanding that he provide a source that actually supported his claim. I made it clear that just because he throws together random links and then says it supports his reconstruction of the meaning of a name, does not make it so (at best, it violates SYNTH - and his bogus etymologies are very good examples of why SYNTH is and should be prohibited, as he was combining different sources to make claims no linguist or scholar of Hebrew supports). But this makes him very dangerous, because anyone who has not studied Hebrew and linguistics at the university level would be deceived into thinking he has done encyclopedic research, and he would get away with it.

Another good example of his POV-warrioring was at the Antisemitism article, where he added a passage saying that antisemitism is also an epithet (meaning, to accuse someone of being antisemitic is a bad thing). Well, of course people cas use words anyway they wish, but this is not part of the scholarly understanding of antisemitism. Once again, Stevertigo has a POV to push, and will not do any research to support it. here he asserts that he will take his case all the way to ArbCom. I just stepped in and told him to stop his bullshit and provide a source. Did he take it to ArbCom? No. It never even went to an RfC or mediation. And yes I admit calling another editor a bullshitter sounds kind of rude. So why didn't he take it to ArbCom? Why not an RfC? Well ...... I think it was because he really was bullshitting, and he had done no research, and he will do no research, and confronted by someone who calls him on it, all he could do was back down.

These are two examples where Tigo eventually backed off because I made sure every other editor knew he was just bullshitting. He could have taken me to ArbCom fro personal attacks except you know what, maybe it is not a personal attack if it is true. Maybe it is not a personal attack when the person in question is violating NOR in order to push his own POV through a serious of disruptive edits. If we ever went through any dispute resolution we would end up ... here. We would have provided evidence. You would have given me a reprimand for incivility, perhaps, but you surely would have ended up banning Stevertigo for disruptive editing. But I did not have the time to take it to ArbCom, especially when my issue with Tigo was really a content dispute (always linked to violating NOR). And he, well, he said he would take it all the way to ArbCom, but in fact he just let the whole thing drop.

That makes his MO clear: He may never use a curse word, but he is the bully - going on and on and on with silly, unverifiable or unsourced edits believing that no one will call him on it, or using bluster ("I will take this all the way to ArbCom!") to try to scare away common-sense editors.

If you look at his pattern of edits you will see that he is constantly putting his own POV in through many small edits to countless articles, the classic sign of a POV editor. And he violates NOR left and right. If you ask me, I can go over the very detailed conflict at the Jesus article ... at one point both of us violated 3RR and after the cool-down period he essentially gave up the fight, but for several days he kept insisting on adding Original Research against consensus. If it will help you make a decision, let me know and I will explain in greater detail.

Or you can just do this: if you ever see a case where he seems to have done research, just let me know. I bet an hour or two consulting real sources will show very quickly that his research is bogus, either entirely fabricated or a misuse of sources. This editor only does damage to Wikipedia. He only creates a mess that will mislead readers until someone picks up on it and cleans up. What is needed is not a topic ban but a general ban for disruptive editing. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Grsz11

As a former sysop who has been here before, Steve should certainly know the definition of disruptive. He has been edit warring across multiple article- and Wiki-space pages with no regard for policy such as WP:NPOV or WP:BLP. His disruptive of administrative processes such as ANI and DRV need looked in to. Grsz¹¹ 13:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as any "uncivil language" by myself goes, I used "fuck" as a verb ("don't fuck with my comments") because I was frustrated with Steve's continuous editing of my comments. Grsz¹¹ 13:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as far as previous dispute resolution goes, multiple editors request a Obama topic-ban for Steve, which did not receive much attention at ANI. This was mostly before he picked up his disruption. As to my involvement, I've just made a few edits in an attempt to check Steve's POV and disruption at ANI. He was forum-shopping when the slighest thing came up and received no outsiders support in these discussions. Grsz¹¹ 13:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As this case is suppose to be about Steve's behavior, yet he only provided alleged wrongdoings against him, i'll put out the same evidence that I offered William Connonlley last night: Opening pointy ANI threads without the slighest hint of attempting to resolve the situation ([1], [2], [3]); edit warring on a talk page; edit warring non-constructive comments back into DRV ([4], [5]); edit warring at ANI to keep his disruptive sections open ([6], [7], [8], [9])

Steve has been around long enough to know that what he is doing is disruptive and inappropriate. If he were a newbie he would be identified as an SPA and indef blocked already. This isn't an issue for Arbitration, as administrative action under the terms of article probation could solve this. Grsz¹¹ 18:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Clerks - Please move Steve's reply above to his own section. Just another example: he knows better, but chooses to be disruptive anyways. Grsz¹¹ 18:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Steve - Please move your comment to your own section where it belongs. Grsz¹¹ 18:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jtrainor

Hopefully Arbcom will also examine the behaviour of Sceptre in this case. Jtrainor (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Bobblehead

Sweet, first time I've been named as an involved party in an arbcom. It would appear that I'm an involved party as a result of a single revert that I made on Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ. To save time, I'll just link to my comment on AN/I after Stevertigo cried wolf about the injustice of it all. If the arbcom takes this case, hopefully they'll explore more than just the behavioral issues around the whole Stevertigo situation, but of the Obama related articles as a whole. It is, quite frankly, impossible to get anything constructive done on the subject with the most trivial of edits resulting in an edit war and a less than collegial discussion thread. Just this weekend, Durova tried to add a featured picture,[10] which was then reverted by another editor,[11], added back by another editor,[12], moved down into a lower section by the editor that reverted the addition,[13] moved back to the previous location by another editor,[14] removed again by the editor that reverted the addition,[15] then re-added by myself with a lengthier caption.[16] And that is just what it takes to add a freaking picture where Obama "looks angry". Try to add anything remotely negative about Obama and you might as well have thrown a match into a lake of gasoline because the talk page is going to explode into a huge flame war. All sides of the discussion no longer assume good faith and believe the other side is only acting for partisan reasons and behave accordingly. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to FayssalF If this request is limited to just a behavioral arbcom on the named participants, then I think an opportunity will be missed to address the underlying problems that exist throughout the Obama related articles and there will just be another arbcom in a few months to address problems with another editor in relation to activities on the subject articles. I also don't see an issue with the inclusion of information from user:Slrubenstein in regards to user:Stevertigo as it goes towards showing a history of disruption where the Obama articles just happen to be the latest place where the disruption occurs.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ali'i

User:Bobblehead has it basically right. Obama articles = clusterfuck. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tarc

Um, what? So I see the arbcom notification today, figure sometime during the night someone finally got tired of Steveo's antics and filed a report. Come here and it appears that he is the filer? This seems like a continuation of them same forum-hopping/shopping that he's been doing the past few days, as linked to above. I believe the only real, specific tit-for-tat I had with this user was over a lame "Uncle Stevertigo's argument matrix" that he put into a deletion review discussion, which I removed (once) for the reason stated in the edit summary. This was the subject of one of this user's AN/I reports, linked above, in which I defended my removal here and here.

I've had no interaction with Steve beyond the Obama-related articles, had no idea he was even a fallen admin til I was browsing through some of his talk page archives, noticed one had a redlink (came back to fix it later), and saw in that #12 some links to an old arbcom case. Honestly, from that to Slrubenstein's statement to the present Obama-related stuff, this looks like a huge pattern of disruptive behavior.

As for the rest of the named parties, I'm, sure there's places where things could've been said with a not-as-sharp tongue, or explained better, sure. Many, myself included, endured quite a shitstorm of vandal-driven attacks on these articles in the wake of the WND/Aaron Klein/Jerusalem21 orchestrated mess. As that was cresting, some longer-established editors of the same POV came in with the same or similar edits, or edit demands in the case of locked pages and/or quick reverts, and there was a fair bit of tension all around. Now that the WND junk has died down, perhaps everyone can settle in a deal with content issues through normal channels. I really do not feel that Steve can be one of these, though, as his actions have been beyond the pale. Tarc (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment by Stevertigo: I haven't been involved in many arbcoms, but even I'm well-aware of the "Reply to another person's comment in your section" advisory. Stevertigo was reminded of this, and the response was, essentially, "no". I believe that this incident needs to be highlighted here, to show just what many of us have been dealing with over the last few days. Tarc (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by JustGettingItRight

I am concerned by Sceptre's abusive behavior (including creating a redirect for Criticism of Barack Obama with the edit summary "so the conservatards won't get their knickers in a twist" [17]). I feel one or two editors (though definitely not the entire list of people cited above) have "baited" Steve. These editors seem to be averse to any negative information about the President and seem to interpret NPOV and a sympathetic point of view, but only in regards to Barack Obama. The mainstream media, not only domestic but global, is watching how Wikipedia handles the encyclopedic treatment of President Obama Fox News Telegraph (UK). Fox News even linked to the Obama FAQ on the talk page. Thus, while ordinarily I think the ArbCom should not take this case, hearing this matter may be beneficial for the project considering the high visibility of the articles in question. I would also like to note, as an aside, that none of these guys seem to have gotten into an edit war on the main Barack Obama page. This observation may not be germane, and may possibly be refuted, but I think it's interesting to note. I hope the ArbCom reiterates the standards for quality expected for articles and also speaks about WP:NPOV and WP:V and how these policies and any other relevant policies relate to this dispute. I would also like to note that Steve has said he is a strong Obama supporter, so I don't think he is motivated by politics. Rather, I think he is motivated by perceived systemic bias. Perhaps the ArbCom can address the issue of systemic bias and the most appropriate way to handle it. JustGettingItRight (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ChildofMidnight

The level of POV pushing on the Barack Obama article and the actions taken against anyone who has tried to better balance the article according to our guidelines is extremely troubling. The vitriolic attacks leveled against anyone who dares modify the article and the extensive soap boxing on the article talk page need to be remedied. This is the worst case of WP:OWN and POV pushing I have come across on Wikipedia and it shouldn't be allowed to continue. Durova's experience trying to include a featured picture is telling. A look through the article's history is also telling. One can easily compare versions where notable details are included, and then scrubbed out. This has been an embarassment to Wikipedia and I hope the Arbcom committee takes on this matter and puts a stop to editors attempting to impose their personal bias on our encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored like this and depends on collaboration from editors with various viewpoints working together to build the best encyclopedia possible. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dank55

I patrol the db-attack, db-spam and db-copyvio queues most days. When I saw this article in the db-attack queue, I took 3 things into consideration: first, it was an article that had already been speedied 5 times by 4 different admins, and the editors all knew this; it was mentioned in the first sentence of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barack_Obama/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama. Second, it was created as a subpage of Barack Obama, and subpages are not allowed in mainspace. Third, and most important, our WP:Attack page policy begins: "An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that exists primarily to disparage its subject. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to being deleted by any administrator at any time." "Disparage" does not mean "make wild accusations", it means "lower in esteem". If the purpose and effect of creating a page is to lower the reader's esteem of someone, our policy is to tag it for speedy deletion and delete it, on sight, without waiting for discussion. Criticism of George W. Bush is not a counterexample to our policy, because this and all other "Criticism of ..." pages were created by consensus to split one page into two; there was no prior consensus to create the various incarnations of Criticism of Barack Obama, nor was it the result of splitting one balanced article into two articles that remained balanced when read together. It was exactly the type of page which our policy requires me to delete on sight; the fact that it was done skillfully, with references, and in a way that might eventually have been balanced by other material is irrelevant to our WP:Attack page policy, and I think all the drama that has followed this and every other attack page that was discussed rather than speedily deleted is proof that our long-standing policy is a good idea.

Having said that: I completely supported Steve's right to be annoyed when an admin (me) strode into an AfD and terminated it by a speedy deletion without even asking permission, and I told him that I understood that he felt slapped down and that I did not mean for my actions to be interpreted as any kind of disapproval. I further supported his right to discuss the matter at DRV when he felt the page wasn't getting a fair hearing, and I don't think he got the hearing he deserved at DRV; no one except me addressed his concern that I acted "out of process". I support his right to bring this to ArbCom to investigate whether I and others acted improperly, but I don't have a position on whether ArbCom should take the case. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Accept to look at the behavior of all involved parties and probably beyond that if need be. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could we please define the scope of this case before moving any further? So far, it seems that most of the statements concern behavior at a few Obama-related articles while user:Slrubenstein's statement refers to user:Stevertigo in another area. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accept per Fayssal. — Roger Davies ^talk 11:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The topic area (Obama and his presidency) is currently a powder keg sitting atop a campfire. Because of the very strong political convictions aggravated by other sociocultural aspects, the tendency to POV war over those articles and to misuse Wikipedia as a soapbox is very great, and decisive action sooner rather than later may help. Accept to look at POV in the topic area, as well as the general behavior of involved editors (in particular, ferreting out biased single purpose accounts does require evaluation of general editing patterns).
Note: I've changed the name of the request to better match the scope. — Coren ^(talk) 17:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept due to turbulence and possible conduct issues. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Conduct on all sides really needs looking into here. Wizardman 19:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept to look at all users and issues that warrant it. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "myth" in religious articles

Initiated by FimusTauri (talk) at 14:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

FimusTauri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ben Tillman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
DVdm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
NathanLee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Many other parties involved to a lesser degree

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[18]
[19]
General notice on the NPOV/FAQ discussion: [20]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

MedCab (first time) [21]
MedCab (2nd time) [22]
Many pages of discussion at Talk:Noah's Ark - the archives are dominated by this
Attempt to gain wider discussion at the village pump; see, e.g. [23] See section "Mythology & Religion"
Many pages devoted to discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/FAQ
AN/I notice: [24]
- ANI 521#User:Ben Tillman

Statement by FimusTauri

The title of this case is slightly misleading, as I believe that the issue applies to any potentially ambiguous word in any article. However, the specific issue raised and unresolved is the use of myth(ology) in religious articles, so I will limit my case to that. It is my understanding that the requirement of this statement is to enable the committee to assess whether there is a case to be heard. To that end I will try to limit any evidence presented to the most salient points.

A brief background: I entered the debate about the use of the word "myth" less than three months ago. At that point the debate had already been going on for (apparently) three years or so. In the short time since then, there has been so much debate that it is now measured in megabytes of text. That alone is sufficient reason to want to see a binding resolution. The heart of the issue is deceptively simple: editors such as Ben Tillman believe that it is perfectly correct to apply the term myth(ology) to some or all religious articles; editors such as myself and Til Eulenspiegel believe that this is in violation of wikipedia policies.

The reason I feel that this issue has to be resolved by the Arbitration Committee is that it has become absolutely clear that discussion or other forms of arbitration will never resolve this issue. It is my belief that it is impossible to neutrally use the word "myth" unless it is made clear to the reader what is meant by the term. There are three 'levels' on which this argument has been made by myself and others:

The common meaning of the term is that of a "made-up" story and it is encumbent upon editors to ensure that, if the word is to be used at all, it is clear to the reader that the common meaning is not intended.
There are plenty of sources that dispute the use of the term in religious articles and ignoring these sources is a violation of NPOV. Til Eulenspiegel has done far more work than I on this area and I invite him to present a more substantial case.
Even if the "academic" meaning of the word is applied, the academics themselves do not agree on a definition. These definitions vary so greatly that none, some or all of, for example, the Bible may be included under them. To illustrate this, I have prepared an essay at User:FimusTauri/Myth.

I strongly believe that other policies, guidelines and even past ArbCom decisions require that the word cannot be used 'in isolation'. By this I mean without adequate context to ensure that the reader understands what the word is intended to mean. Please see [25] (scroll down to near the bottom). There are 18 different reasons here.

Unfortunately, Ben Tillman (and others) simply refuse to accept this: [26], [27].

Despite attempting to assume good faith, I have found the "tactics" employed by Ben to be disingenuous. For the sake of brevity, I will summarise here; diffs are available if required. He has made frequent unfound accusations against me; most notably of being a sockpuppet of Til Eulenspiegel, of having religious motivations, of selective canvassing and of forum shopping. He refuses to engage in meaningful debate about this issue and will often attempt to divert from the real issues by digressions. He also (with occasional help from others) acts in a way that conforms to the "consensus-blocking" paragraph of WP:TAGTEAM.

The "Regarding terminology" section of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ #Religion (see [28]) was re-written by Ben, as was Wikipedia:Words to avoid #Myth and legend (see [29]). In both cases this was done without consultation or consensus, despite the fact that the NPOV/FAQ was, at the time, flagged as "policy", with a clear warning to editors to gain consensus before making changes. I raised an RfC on the NPOV/FAQ talk page to discuss the relevent section there, but this is where the debate has ground to a halt with Ben and others claiming that "there is nothing to discuss", despite the weight of evidence mentioned above.

Ben has demonstrated that he is capable of intelligent, rational discussion and he has made some valuable contributions to Wikipedia. I do not want to see some 'punishment' meted out to him; I wish to see this issue resolved. For the reasons stated above, it is clear to me that, if an editor wishes to include the word "myth", the guidelines must ensure that he does so in a way that the reader is left with a clear understanding of the intended meaning. This is actually very little to ask.

In response to those arbitrators who have expressed the opinion that this is a content dispute:

There is absolutely no doubt that this began as a content dispute. When I entered the discussion it was specifically about the word "myth" in the article on Noah's Ark. There is also no doubt that that content dispute still remains and it is now clear to me that it is a dispute that covers a large range of articles. However, whilst I and others have been willing to discuss that dispute in the relevent places, it is abundantly clear to me that certain editors are engaged in tactics designed to prevent discussion. It is the activities of these editors that needs to be addressed. In my desire for brevity, above, I have perhaps failed to address this fully. I will remedy this later and post a number of diffs here. I would ask that arbitrators withhold their decisions until I have accomplished that.

I would also pose this question: If other editors will not discuss this issue, what is the correct forum? It is sheer exasperation that has brought us here. If ArbCom will not deal with this, then who will?

As promised, here are a number of diffs to illustrate the issue. I believe that Ben is gaming the system, whether consciously or not. Others are also contributing to this, with the nett result that debate is stifled and attempts to bring this issue to the attention of the wider community are thwarted. The following is not exhaustive, but should serve as a valid indicator. Please note the edit comments are telling in some instances.

As noted above, Ben has edited policies/guidelines without consensus in order to bring support to his position. Soon after making those he changes he was citing WP:WTA: [30], [31] and [32]
Despite not gaining consensus for his own proposal, he was ready to cite that alternative proposals had no consensus and that this was reason enough to end discussion (thus leaving his own wording in place): [33] and [34]
A further tactic employed is to misrepresent the motives of other editors: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]
He also attempts to misrepresent proposals: [43], [44]
When I attempted to achieve discussion about a related proposal on style, he immediately misrepresented both my motives and the proposal: [45]
He has frequently refused to discuss the issues: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50],
He has acted like something of WP:DIVA, threatening (and subsequently carrying out this threat) to unilaterally archive discussions and to "leave" for a week: [51], [52], [53]
Upon returning, after other editors had started to achieve a viable wording, he immediately refused to accept this: [54]
He refuses to answer direct question regarding policies:[55]

Other editors have, to a significantly lesser degree, acted in similar ways. One example is [56]. I do not know if this editor was tagteaming, but Ben was very quick to quote this contribution on the AN/I notice.

Whilst compiling this list, I became aware that this request may place the arbitration committee in something of a dichotomy. Since the complaint here is that Ben and Co refuse to accept that there is any issue to discuss, the only "remedy" is that they be convinced that an issue exists (or that they cease from further disrupting the debate). This requires an admission that there is an issue. In order to sanction Ben and Co, the committee must therefore decide that there is an issue with the way that "myth" is currently being used in various articles. Conversely, if there is no issue, then the actions of editors such as myself must be questioned. By implication, whichever way the committee decides (as regards accepting the request) may be seen as a de facto victory for one side or the other. This also illustrates a point I have been trying to make: this is not about article content; it is about whether there is an issue with article content.

Given Ben's utter refusal to admit that there is a contention over the definition of the word "myth", I find this contribution by him utterly bizarre.

@Sam Blacketer: Actually, this may have started as being about article content, but the bulk of the discussion has been held at the NPOV/FAQ page, where it has been about an issue of policy. Your specific examples do not work; Arthur and Robin Hood are classed as legend not myth. Again, I must iterate that this is not about the use of the word myth; it is about the way it used (or, rather, misused).

Statement by Til Eulenspiegel

I have prepared a sub-user page containing all manner of verifiable references relevant to a number of significant, published, and widespread opinions, on the question of the epistemological framing of canonical texts of various faiths. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am reluctant to see this as a behavioural or punitive question, rather than a disagreement on the nature of NPOV that begs to be clarified. However, the main violation of NPOV that I see occurring is the refusal of a few involved editors to recognise, or even acknowledge, valid, scholarly sources on the theological background to this question, including several prominent ones quite plainly written on my page I linked above. Their argument seems to be a classic type of the No true Scotsman logical fallacy - "no true scholar" disagrees with their POV, and ergo, they are not "true" scholars if they do disagree, no matter how many they may be. I can look for diffs to exemplify this violative behaviour, and their intransigence from this position, if that would help; otherwise, I can see only continued stalemate. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Baseball Bugs

The term "myth" is commonly understood by the average reader to mean "fairy tale". Using that term in the lead, and then defending it on "scholarly" grounds, is insulting to the average reader, and that works against Wikipedia's credibility. The neutral term "story" could just as easily be used. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if you have to spend paragraph after paragraph explaining the term to the general public, then maybe you need to find a different term. Such as "story" which is just as good and is neutral. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by DVdm

The word "myth" is perfect, as can be seen in this summary of principal meanings as found on dictionary.reference.com:

from Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1):

"A traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."

from American Heritage Dictionary:

"A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth."

from Online Etymology Dictionary:

"Myths are "stories about divine beings, generally arranged in a coherent system; they are revered as true and sacred; they are endorsed by rulers and priests; and closely linked to religion. Once this link is broken, and the actors in the story are not regarded as gods but as human heroes, giants or fairies, it is no longer a myth but a folktale. Where the central actor is divine but the story is trivial ... the result is religious legend, not myth." (J. Simpson & S. Roud, "Dictionary of English Folklore," Oxford, 2000, p.254)"

from Wordnet:

"A traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people"

from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:

"A story of great but unknown age which originally embodied a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; an ancient legend of a god, a hero, the origin of a race, etc.; a wonder story of prehistoric origin; a popular fable which is, or has been, received as historical."

Comment by Looie496

If Arbcom accepts this case, it should do so with a mandate to consider the behavior of all editors, including those who filed the case. There is a rather strong argument that they have been behaving disruptively, and not only with respect to the "myth" issue. Looie496 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ben Tillman

My comment with respect to FimusTauri's original comment

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

The above statement by Fimus doesn't make it clear to me what I should be commenting on. If he's asking the ArbCom to rule that the word myth should be used with care, then the Wikipedia:WTA#Myth and legend page that he objected to me editing already states that. If he believes the word is being used improperly, technically or stylistically, he is welcome to challenge it on the offending article's talk page (with references if necessary). Perhaps I haven't captured exactly what his complaint is, but I suspect it is along the lines of a content dispute over use of the term that seems to me best left for an offending article's talk page.

On the other hand, if this is about my behaviour, he really should have brought a few more diffs for me discuss. One of his 'most notable' mentions is that I accused him of being a sock puppet of Til Eulenspiegel. Well, perhaps he should have used to word suspected, but yes I did. Here is the link to where I filed that case including diffs and reasoning. I was happy to drop it immediately after others weren't convinced (and for the record I don't still think he is a sock puppet - that case was filed when Fimus had two edits to his name). He also mentions that I edited WP:WTA and WP:NPOV/FAQ, but no-one objected to these edits until Fimus came along a month later. I don't see the problem? If there is some other pressing behavioural issue Fimus would like to discuss, I'll need some other diffs since I don't see any problem with the ones he presented. I don't pretend to think I am perfect, and both Til and Fimus are very hard to have a discussion with, so I suspect my exasperation shows through from time to time. Ben (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Fimus has provided some diffs to discuss I've hidden my first comment, but since Fimus' first comment remains I'll leave it there for now in case it proves useful for others.

I don't have time just at the moment to go through all of the diffs Fimus has presented, as I've got some things to organise for my day tomorrow, but I'll make a start. I'll use numbering to refer to each one of Fimus' bullet points. Also, I ask that everyone reading through to be careful that Fimus hasn't mischaracterised the diff.

1. Fimus asserts that I edited policies and guidelines and then began quoting them to support my position.

In fact, I have only edited one policy (WP:NPOV/FAQ) and one guideline (WP:WTA), I have never quoted my own text and there were no sinister motives behind my edits as Fimus seems to be suggesting.

I have quoted WTA many times throughout my time on Wikipedia, but never my own text. Fimus gives two such diffs around the 14th of December. Around the time of those last quotes I felt that perhaps the text could be made clearer. In the interest of possible conflicts of interest I waited several weeks from the last time WTA was mentioned, was quite sure it was unlikely to be quoted again in that discussion and made sure I wasn't going to invalidate anyone's previous use of WP:WTA before going ahead with some tweaks on the 7th of January. If I recall WTA was never mentioned on the Noah's Ark talk page again (as I suspected, it was past history). Others are welcome to check comments surrounding Fimus' diffs to make sure I wasn't invalidating previous use of WTA. Fimus offers one more diff of me quoting WP:WTA in general, but as you can read I simply felt problem word usage (any word) was already adequately handled by the WP:WTA page, as opposed to his new Wikipedia:Ambiguous Words proposal. I wasn't arguing through WP:WTA.

I also edited an existing piece of WP:NPOV/FAQ that gave special attention to a particular term (fundamentalism). The was nothing special about that particular term, so I generalised the text a little. I was very careful to try and use existing wording so as not to invalidate anyone's previous use of the section. Again, contrary to Fimus' claim above, I have never quoted this text to try and give weight to my arguments. There seemed to be no issue with my wording until Fimus came along around a month later and started an RfC on it. In fact, I was complimented on the concept. Ben (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise that this is so long, I might trim it down when I have some time, and I'll try and keep new comments shorter. At the very least, this demonstrates Fimus' habbit of misrepresenting my actions and/or comments, which is why I asked others to be careful above. Ben (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by DreamGuy

I can understand how some people might initially be confused by the use of the term "myth," but it has a very specific academic meaning, and we have tried across many articles to make sure our readers understand it. The mythology article explains it in more detail, which the term myth links to. If people are confused because some common misunderstanding of the term means "falsehood" it is up to the Wikipedia articles to clarify it, not to have the word being used in its proper academic sense being banned. Anyone confused at the meaning of the word can just click the link and go read, simple as that. Replacing the word with some other term, such as "story", is just being imprecise for no reason. "Story" has several meanings and a much broader definition than myth, and is equally likely to cause offense ("Wikipedia is saying it's just a story and not a fact.") while not conveying as much information as it could. In fact I think story is more offensive than myth, at least to anyone who bothers to click the myth link. If they can't be bothered then it's not our fault.

As a point of comparison, there are several words that the average person on the street doesn't understand that are used in academic ways and have not been banned. "Evolution" for example has specific meanings in biology, and despite some people thinking that it means something like "continuous improvement over time" (and it may well in certain circumstances -- i.s. not biology), or even "godless affront to any true Christian," we still use it in biology articles. Similarly, the average person probably thinks schizophrenic means someone with multiple personalities, but a link on the term takes people to the explanation. I would hate to think other words that people sometimes are confused about -- such as the supposed racist or sexist origins of "picnic" and so forth -- would all get censored just because ignorant people jump to being offended without taking any amount of effort to use the sources available at the click of a mouse button to educate themselves.

Furthermore, the most disturbing part of this complaint -- not present in at least one of the above editors, but I have seen it in others over and over -- is that they have no resistance to calling the beliefs of other cultures' religious stories as "myths" but instead focus solely on when it's used to describe Judeo-Christian myths. If "myth" is going to be described as so offensive as to prohibit its use in articles dealing with religious beliefs, it'd be a severe violation of NPOV to enforce such a regulation only for the stories of religious beliefs that certain editors deem to be false. In effect, we would not be able to use that term in pretty much any article anywhere, as every myth by definition is part of the religious belief of one culture or another -- some dead, some near-dead (with some holdouts who shouldn't have their beliefs insulted), and some modern. DreamGuy (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And to respond specifically to User:Baseball Bugs -- one sentence is all that takes to explain myth to prove no anti-religious sentiment in its use. But, more importantly, this is an encyclopedia, so we're specifically here to educate people. If we can't use any term that requires explanation then we might as well turn the whole site into a fanlisting for people's favorite cartoons and TV shows. Ignorance of a term when the link is right there explaining it is no excuse to remove a term. DreamGuy (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional comment, let me specifically say that I think arbitration is completely unnecessary at this point, as it is, as pointed out by ArbCom members below, just a content dispute and not about any bad faith behavior or explicit violations. I know the people here asking that the term not be used are working in good faith, they just can't see the inherent religious and anti-academic bias of their position. DreamGuy (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Hans Adler

[redundant comment removed per general request by Carcharoth below; feel free to remove this section when all references to it are removed] --Hans Adler (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Master&Expert

While not specifically specified in the list of words to avoid, "myth" is a word that, when used in religious context, suggests a belief or idea is nothing more than folklore. It can potentially convey too much of a POV, and therefore is better left out of the lead of a religious article in favour of more agreeable terminology. Perhaps it may be a good idea to clarify this on the WTA article under the sub-section "religion" so it will cause less confusion. Otherwise, I agree with Hans Adler above — I feel it is still within the scope of the community to resolve this dispute before arbitration is necessary. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by NathanLee

The term myth or mythology is entirely applicable. This boils down to one or two editors wanting religious exceptions and censorship to avoid offending a literal/fundamentalist interpretation of stories in the bible (see here). They cite literal interpretations as the sources which need to be adhered to and thus providing an exception for "living religions". In the words to avoid style guide it covers this and we have a myth box which clearly states what definition is to be used. Some editors claim to have a definition of "mythology"/"myth" which differs from the dictionary ones which they want to take precedence.

Here are a list of dictionary definitions of myth or mythology, none of which claim "purely false" and which simply describe as "sacred narrative which may be regarded as historical" which is EXACTLY what these stories from religion are:

If we want to be correct: it would be perfectly acceptable to label some of these stories as fiction (e.g. Noah's ark vs Epic of Gilgamesh, same story but the biblical one isn't called fiction), but the term "mythology" is a richer term and attaches the concept of significance of stories in religious narratives.

Even the last pope believed that fundamentalist or literal interpretation of the OT would be a bad idea: [57]. So the last pope wasn't offended, yet we've got editors on here who are.

A great deal of patience has been shown by myself and others to try and identify the issue [58] to prevent continual reverts (with simple questions going unanswered like "Is there any such thing as Christian mythology, Jewish mythology, Islamic mythology"), find dictionary definitions, encyclopaedic usage[59][60], corrections to information provided (e.g. it was claimed by Til Eulenspeigel that the pope specifically said not to use myth), statements from religious leadersusing the term myth, or countering bizarre statements that the term myth is some sort of hate speech or communist plot to undermine religion. Despite all this the push has always been to continue to arbitration despite any supplied evidence/references [61][62] as if to get a sweeping judgement that wikipedia must censor a common academic term. Project mythology might object to that also.

This issue is no different to the group of Muslims who object to images of mohammed, except far more niche. We need neutral treatment of these stories, not one put forward from within the literal interpretations of the religions themselves.

Clear labelling of mythological stories to differentiate them from historical ones is important and consistent across wikipedia (e.g. Greek mythology, Christian mythology, Aboriginal mythology, Norse mythology) and encyclopaedia britannica. We can't have Aboriginal mythology but then insist that Christian mythology is a banned concept (which is what this is asking for). Sure some people believe it to be historically true, that doesn't fall outside what the term "myth" describes. NathanLee (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ludwigs2

As one of the 'lesser involved parties' in this dispute, I find myself agreeing with Master&Expert, above. I'm just sorry that this RfA only deals with the word 'Myth', and not with the more general issue of pejorative weasel-words. To my mind, the issue is simple and unambiguous:

If a word or phrase has a well-known pejorative sense, its use should be clearly and directly attributed to a reliable source, so that readers who might be insulted by it can see how the word is used in its proper context.
If the pejorative word or phrase cannot be clearly and directly attributed to a reliable source, it should be replaced by a more innocuous word to avoid the impression that Wikipedia and its editors are making a judgement about the topic.

This strikes me as a point of core policy: let disputes (even mild ones) be represented by reliable sources.

The more general issue here is the question of what to do when editors defend bad inferences. In the case of 'Myth', for instance, yes: this word has been used by a number of scholarly sources in reference to a number of stories from many faiths. Fine so far... But using the word without attribution implies that the term is universally accepted and conventionally used. This may or may not be true among reliable sources in general (and scholarly sources in particular). Asserting it as truth is a bad inference; asserting it as truth without providing sources (even after multiple requests to do so) is advocacy. 'Myth' in particular is a clearly contested word with noted pejorative implications, and yet my attempts to change the word to a more innocuous synonym (in these cases, the word 'belief') or to add a {{fact}} tag requesting a citation about its use, all meet with rapid reversion 52 minutes, 13 minutes, 4 minutes, 14 minutes, 8 minutes, 6 minutes, usually on the basis that the more innocuous term (or the 'fact' tag, for heaven's sake) represents a POV position. trying to discuss the matter reasonably meets with page-loads of obstructionism which you can read for yourself in the several places noted above. There is no possibility of resolving the issue in the face of editors who completely disregard conventional content dispute practices.

Now let me be frank: from my own viewpoint (I'm a 'philosophical spiritualist' - i.e., an agnostic who thinks way too much) I personally couldn't care less about the use of this word on religious articles. As far as I'm concerned all religion is mythology, and I think the world would be a happier place if people everywhere recognized that. But they don't, and I am not inclined to use wikipedia to push my own secular beliefs down the throats of everyone else. That's really what's going on here: editors like Ben, DreamGuy, and DVdm are trying (whether they know it or not) to weasel-word in a particular set of secular beliefs as though they were facts, and that is really not appropriate to an encyclopedia.

[section on definitions removed per arbiter request (below)]

Comment by Ilkali

The essence of Fimus' complaint is "I'm obviously right, but these people are disagreeing with me. They must be troublemakers". What he describes as a refusal to accept that he's right is just a plain old, healthy, difference of opinion. What he says are attempts to "stifle" debate are honestly-held, diligently argued beliefs that his proposals are detrimental.

I do think there are issues with Fimus' behaviour, especially his habits of forum-shopping and of impugning editors who disagree with him, but I don't think these need to be addressed at the level of ArbCom. Ilkali (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Not a clerk, but I removed the multiple uses of the userlinks template in the headers of this request. Feel free to revert me if I'm in error. Avruch^T 15:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/1/2)

Comment: On the surface this appears to be a content dispute, and looking further in this seems to be a content dispute, albeit a rather major one. Leaning decline, I would need convincing as to why arbcom is the correct area to send this dispute. Wizardman 00:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is clearly a content dispute. Please can those who have added statements, and those who wish to add statements, not give long explanations of the semantics and definitions of the terms involved (the dictionary definitions are not needed at the request stage). What is needed is diffs and descriptions of the behaviour of the editors and admins involved here. Could those who have already added statements that address the content and not the behaviour, please refocus their statements to give examples of editor conduct during this dispute (e.g. edit warring, gaming of consensus, misrepresentation of sources, and so on). The actual discussion of the content does not need to be repeated here - links to summaries of the background are fine. Carcharoth (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse due to user:Ilkali being involved in this, and my both myself and Ilkali being involved in the Alastair Haines arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can only decline this case with the absence of any diffs showing instances or a trend of questionable behavior from either or both sides. My position is open to change if anything related to inappropriate behavior is presented. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What we have here is a prolonged content dispute which remains unsettled. It may be causing aggravation but it is nevertheless just a content dispute in which we do not intervene. In the interests of being helpful I would say that referring to certain religious stories as part of the 'mythology' is not necessarily to use the term 'myth' in its pejorative sense. In English non-religious mythology, there are people such as King Arthur and Robin Hood around whom stories are told which are clearly fables. However behind them are real historical characters. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline; this is clearly and exclusively a content dispute. I point out that this particular dispute is exemplar of what I feel is a void in our dispute resolution process: the absence of a binding method of solving clearly delineated content disputes such as this one. At this time, ArbCom does not have the authority to make such binding decision, and it is debatable whether it should— but serious thought should be given by the community to create such a mechanism lest disputes like this one increasingly create unsolvable problems. — Coren ^(talk) 17:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. I share Sam Blacketer's thoughts on this issue. Like FayssalF, there is not sufficient information provided for this to be interpreted as a behavioural issue. Risker (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Sam and Risker. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aitias

The following request is suspended for 72 hours as per Motion 1. Please do not modify or make further comments to it, unless you are adding yourself to the case as a party. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Initiated by Majorly talk at 02:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Majorly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Aitias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[63]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aitias
[64]
Plus others found in the RFC
Comments from various editors here

Statement by Majorly

I'm saddened to bring this here, as much as I avoid drama, but feel it is the most appropriate route. Aitias was the subject of a user RFC just under a month ago, and I agreed to its closure on the basis that Aitias had learnt from the issues raised, and that he would change his approach, and perhaps take a break from RFR. To summarise the RFC: it was becoming clear Aitias was having WP:OWN issues around the rollback page, and when someone disagreed with a decision of his, he often became hostile, rude, and often insulting to both the admin and the person applying. He often takes a high handed approach in situations, such as regarding early closures of RFAs, yet cannot handle any flack that comes with it. A big issue was Aitas's own use of rollback, which was sometimes erroneous, and yet he denied people for mistakes made months ago. He often did not seem to "get" when it was time to end the discussion, such as where I demonstrated on RFA talk. He also brought several instances of "misbehaviour" to admin noticeboard, and it was clear in the cases I presented, there was no need at all for admin intervention.

While the RFC had several minor issues in it, they gradually build up over time, and Aitias has again come to my attention. The point of the RFC closing was for him to take a break from RFR, where most of the biggest problems were. He took a total of 4 days away from the page, which was not really long enough with hindsight.

I was pointed to [this by someone, where it shows Aitias has yet again turned to aggression, sarcasm, and rudeness when someone, quite within their rights, granted rollback to somebody Aitias disagreed with. The discussion then moved to his talk page, where I told him how concerned I was. I then noticed this inappropriate revert of a good faith edit. I asked him about it, and he pointed to the rollback feature page as his reasoning. I explained to him the difference between user and user talk space, but he told me to stop discussing it and "wikilawyering". Since he refused to accept this was the case, I decided to come here, since I believe he is no longer suited to be in a position of authority, because he can't seem to handle it. When I implied I was going to request arbitration, he egged me on, saying "Do it Majorly, do it", and continued to insist I was wrong. JulianColton and SWATJester both agreed that Aitias's revert was inappropriate, and Aitias did not provide any evidence or policy based reason why he was reverting a good faith edit. He continued to insist everyone except him was wrong, and responded LOL. Again, read Wikipedia:Rollback_feature#When_to_use_rollback ("[... to revert content in your own user space [...]") and Wikipedia:User_space. It's simple, you're wrong, nothing to admit on my part (but on yours), no need for further discussion]. Since this is not an isolated incident, and an ongoing pattern, I believe this is extremely problematic behaviour.

This is not the only thing I have discovered. Aitias makes a lot of edits, so it is difficult to go through them and find any potential problems, but I did see a lot of issues with the User:RMHED block. The original post contains comments from Aitias that appear to be unnecessarily goading, and begging some admin to block for longer, which was rather unnecessary considering several admins were dealing with it. He was asked on several occasions on the thread to disengage - he did not listen, instead creating a further (pointless) thread about off-wiki attacks [65]. He then proceeded to create an RFC, despite the user being blocked, and the issue long over - an example of adding further fuel to the fire (that had burned out pretty much by then in any case). The page was deleted, but Aitias simply did not get the hint [66] to stop it. His continued posts to the page caused MZMcBride to ask him to stop posting there. Aitias argued about it, and continued to post there anyway [67], fussing about an apparent COI - comments are further goading the editor whose talk it was.

There was another issue which I should bring up, though I personally did not see it as a big issue, but others did. The creation of this reconfirmation RFA was seen by many to be POINTy (though I disagreed completely) and unnecessarily rushed through against normal procedures.

A further issue I found was a block of Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) (again, I agreed with this block, but the crowd was divided). Further details can be found here, and here.

A couple of days ago, this discussion took place on Aitias's talk, with some editors concerned about his ongoing issues.

So in conclusion, while I agree with Aitias on many issues, I feel he is no longer suited to continue as an administrator. Admins ought to have full respect from the community, should act professionally, and converse with other people politely and with respect. I feel another RFC would be fruitless, as he appears to have not learnt a thing from the first one, so I come here, and he even seems to want me to, wrt his egging me on. I do not believe Aitias is a net positive any longer and think he should be desysopped, at least temporarily. Thanks for your consideration.

To Avruch: there's a little phrase that goes "the straw that broke the camel's back". This was it. As I mentioned in my statement, it's a lot of different issues over time building up and building up. The rollback was problematic, but if Aitias had simply admitted it was and accepted he could have gone about it differently, the issue would be over. Instead, he argued and argued, claiming everyone except him was wrong, and insisting he was totally in the right to revert good faith edits, despite three other users concerned with it. In short, yes, the rollback brought me here today, but it's far from the only issue. Majorly talk 03:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Protonk (talk)

I don't have a comment yet on the RfC issues (which appear substantive), but I do want to say that it isn't a stretch to accept that WP:ROLLBACK allows reversion of edits on your own talk page without an edit summary. I recommend that both sides of the debate drop their accusations of wikilawyering and move to another issue.

Statement by Acalamari

Unfortunately, I believe that this case is necessary. I was preparing a second requests for comment in my userspace, but after seeing recent events transpire, I have to agree with arbitration. I tried to talk to Aitias the other day, but it doesn't appear to have convinced Aitias to change his behavior, and neither has the comments and encouraging from other users. I've been losing confidence in Aitias' judgment for some time now, and it's not surprising that this request has been filed. I once admin coached Aitias, nominated him for adminship, and gave him lots of help in the past in addition to the coaching; I'm disappointed that it's come to me endorsing an arbitration request and his possible desysopping. His actions listed by Majorly, the main RfC and the userspace RfC do not display conduct an administrator should have. Acalamari 02:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Avruch: it was Aitias' incivility towards Juliancolton that made me decide to create the RfC, and yes, it was the rollback incident that pushed Majorly to filing this case. Acalamari 03:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without wanting to pile-on or appearing to be "out for blood" (which I am not), I also agree with Fritzpoll, though if Aitias resigned, there would be no need to continue this. Acalamari 17:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rjd0060

Majorly points to this recent thread that I initiated on Aitias' talk page after he reverted an edit (that I made) with the edit summary "?". I would just like to note that some of my comments on Aitias' talk page may seem short. I acknowledge this, however, I feel I should explain a bit further. Ever since the end of December when Aitias added a complaint about one of my actions to the Administrators noticeboard, I've noticed that he seemed to have an issue with controlling his behavior and conduct. There have been several discussions (on various talk pages - linked above in Majorly's statement) about Aitias and his inappropriate conduct, yet he still seems to fail to understand (or at the very least, acknowledge) that there is an issue, and continues to argue that those who disagree with him are simply wrong.

Clearly something needs to happen here as it is apparent that a number of users have tried, and failed to help and they are beginning to (and some already have) lose their patience with Aitias. As Acalamari says above, Aitias' conduct is far from acceptable, especially for an administrator. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Avruch — Just to echo what others have already said in reply to your comment: things can only build and build for so long before somebody decides that enough is enough. In this case, it took a few months but it has finally happened. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad — While Aitias does address a few concerns about specific actions that he has taken, he does not address (or at least does so quite poorly) his general conduct issues . Considering this case (should it be accepted) should be primarily about his conduct in general (and minimally about a few specific incidents — like using rollback on non-vandalism edits and creating reconfirmation RfA's) I don't see any indication that he has even acknowledged that his behavior is out of line. This is also stated by Mr.Z-man below. Given that a number of users have made attempts to talk with Aitias about his issues, and the fact that he has yet to change his general attitude, and based on the continued lack of acknowledgment, I would still think that this case should be accepted. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Aitias — You state "Also, Rjd was the one who made a mistake and I reverted it correctly — Rjd did admit that his edit was mistaken." which indicates that you're still missing the point. This (wa|i)sn't about whether or not my edit was right. It is about your inappropriate response to it and the holier-than-thou approach that you take when people attempt to discuss things with you (this is evidenced by a few comments, including [68], among others, as well as your general demeanor). - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this comment — As you said that you are "tired of this project", will you be relinquishing your administrator rights? - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncmvocalist — One could argue that the previous RfC and the number of attempted discussions with Aitias since that RfC could constitute as plenty of time to "sort issues out" (as you said). - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ArbCom, regarding the retirement — I'd just like to echo what others have already said with regards to Aitias' "retirement". Given that he has not requested the removal of his Sysop rights, I would still hope that the committee accepts this case. Users "retire" regularly and return and nobody knows if this is an attempt to hinder Arbitration Committee proceedings (not an accusation, but a possibility). Should he eventually chose to relinquish his Sysop rights, I would assume that doing so would be "under a cloud" and that a simple motion declaring that he must go through RfA again and/or contact the committee to regain the bit, would be voted on. As (in my opinion) this case would be about his conduct as an administrator, I don't believe the case would be needed if he were to relinquish his administrator rights as I explained in the previous sentence. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SWATJester

The individual actions are not important here. Aitias's behavior, however, viewed as a trend, which Majorly outlines above, is extremely disturbing. The flat-refusal to admit that his actions could even SLIGHTLY be controversial, when no less than three other people have stepped in to say that they are, is a very very bad sign for an admin; especially when he has had a history of problems involving this area, and even more so when the guideline in question says (WP:ROLL) repeatedly things like "Rollback must always be used with care."; "When in doubt, manually revert to the appropriate revision and supply an edit summary to explain your reasoning"; and most obviously If there is any doubt about whether an edit should be rolled back, please do not use this feature.. "The rollback feature is available to administrators and users with the rollbacker permission on Wikipedia as a fast method of undoing edits that are blatantly nonproductive, such as vandalism and nonsense."

It's so blindingly obvious that Aitias' behavior is not at all in the spirit of the rollbacking rule. ESPECIALLY given the fact that there is clearly doubt, and controversy as to the appropriateness, yet he refuses to admit that his use of rollback is wrong.

Again, it doesn't matter that it is a user talk page, or that the individual subject in question is petty. What is important is the issues raised by Aitias' behavior here. It is patently dangerous for an administrator to refuse to admit any potential concept of error on his behalf in the face of several experienced users pointing out that something is wrong. It's even more dangerous for the administrator to blatantly ignore something that says "if there's any doubt about what you're doing, DONT DO IT" and go ahead and do it anyway. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncmvocalist: I'm not involved with Aitias in any way. I didn't partake in the RFC (nor did I hear about it until the dispute at his talk page). I have a long history of not getting along with Majorly either, so perhaps that somewhat clarifies the extent of the situation here that I fully endorse his (Majorly's) opinion on this.

@Ncmvocalist and others: It's a misleading statement to say that he's "improving" or taking steps to change; his carefully drafted response showed a complete lack of taking responsibility for his actions, instead shifting the blame on others, a massive unwillingness to show any signs that he might accept criticism of his actions as an admin, etc. Given the fact that this is AFTER an RFC pointing out these issues, it's probably more accurate to say that he is significantly worsening, rather than improving (or at the least, maintaining a status quo of "inappropriate". Not that that's any better). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Aitias: Passing this off as "other editors simply not liking you", or "some editors, are always the same" is laughable. I had no idea who you were until this started. If other editors don't like you, it's probably due to your irascible attitude on-wiki. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Juliancolton

First off, I'd like to acknowledge that I've had plenty of pleasant encounters with Aitias in the past. In general, he's hardly a bad user; however, I, like others, have serious concerns about his recent conduct, as well as his use of the admin tools. The most recent issues are listed at User:Acalamari/RFC, and I feel there's no need to repeat them in this statement. That said, I do believe Aitias has a tendency to WP:OWN certain pages such as WP:PERM/R, where he is often rather impolite with users whom he disagrees with—including myself. He often makes it difficult or impossible for other users to discuss issues with him, as evidenced by his current talk page revision, and the recent misuse of rollback on his talk page. Other users have sufficiently explained these incidents, though, so I won't continue my rant. While none of these individual issues are earth-shattering, Aitias' general behavior has been poor at times, and I'm afraid that I have doubts regarding his status as an administrator.

As an aside, I endorse the above statements, specifically those by Rjd and Acalamari. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Avruch: Not really. Several users have expressed concerns with Aitias' behavior for several weeks (months?) now, so this is more of a long-term issue. In essence, the rollback incident seems to be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Fritzpoll. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aitias

Well, I will start with analysing all the evidence presented here by several users, especially of course by Majorly. The first thing here that seems to be noteworthy is that all the evidence presented in the various statements is mostly quoted out of context — this constitutes, at least in my opinion, a considerable problem and thus I will try to provide some context/background for each of the incidents presented.

For the beginning, as Majorly just repeats the allegations from the RfC, it seems to be the best thing to read the whole reply I provided back then, so that I do not have to repeat everything.

“The point of the RFC closing was for him to take a break from RFR [...] He took a total of 4 days away from the page [...]” Well, some context: I asked Majorly on his talk page how long he expected me to not edit the rollback page. His reply was: “I don't expect or demand anything; I haven't been looking at your edits or anything. [...] If you think you're able to return there now, feel free.” Also, regarding the “WP:OWN issues” (in case they did exist before the RfC), I think I have worked more than well on them after the RfC (as promised): Since the RfC closed, I have made just a few edits to that page — in total, about 5% of the edits that were made in this timeframe were made by me; just in contrast: 34% of the edits were made by User:Juliancolton. I don't think one can call that “WP:OWN issues”.
“I was pointed to [this by someone, where it shows Aitias has yet again turned to aggression, sarcasm, and rudeness when someone, quite within their rights, granted rollback to somebody Aitias disagreed with.” Firstly, none of this applies. My comments do neither constitute sarcasm nor aggression, let alone “rudeness”. Also, I did not disagree with Juliancolton's decision to grant rollback — if one reads my comments carefully they will find out that this was not at all the point I tried to make. To illustrate this point, I think it may be a good idea to simply quote an email I wrote Juliancolton:

“ Dear Julian,

thank you for your e-mail. I never disagreed with your decision to grant rollback in general - merely with the manner. I would have granted rollback here as well, however I found this one worrying revert and thus I asked this question. After the user had written this reply, I would have granted as well. I simply deemed ignoring my concern/question and granting rollback that hasty a bit disrespectful. "In hindsight, I suppose I shouldn't have been so hasty in granting the user rollback."¹ - This was exactly the point I tried to make.

Howsoever, I hope everything is a bit more understandable now. :)

Best wishes,

Aitias.”

¹ This is quoted from Juliancolton's e-mail, to which I did reply with my e-mail.

“I then noticed this inappropriate revert of a good faith edit. [...] JulianColton and SWATJester both agreed that Aitias's revert was inappropriate, and Aitias did not provide any evidence or policy based reason why he was reverting a good faith edit. He continued to insist everyone except him was wrong [...]”. Firstly, it was not only me who told Majorly that he was wrong. Protonk (talk · contribs) tried to do this was well: “You can roll back edits on your user or user talk page, FYI. No wikilawyering about it.” and also in his statement here. When I was told that one is entitled to use rollback in his own user space (of course including user talk page) the first time (I think I was told on AN or AN/I), I was surprised as well. However, the situation is clear, even if still disputed by Majorly. Howsoever, it was anyway the first time I did revert a good faith edit using rollback in my user space, and it will remain the last time.

“This is not the only thing I have discovered. Aitias makes a lot of edits, so it is difficult to go through them and find any potential problems, but I did see a lot of issues with the User:RMHED block. The original post contains comments from Aitias that appear to be unnecessarily goading, and begging some admin to block for longer, which was rather unnecessary considering several admins were dealing with it.” I have to ask Majorly for clarification here, as it is not clear to me to which comment he is exactly referring to. If he is referring to “Actually, the edits on Deaths in 2009 clearly constituted Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Has this been taken into account while blocking?” I can not see anything wrong about this comments; it was a simple, unproblematic question that received a simple answer without any problems. Also, I don't think I have much to say to RMHED's block. I will quote a short part of an e-mail sent to me by RMHED a few days ago instead: “Aitias I just wanted you to know that I bear you no ill feelings. I called you an arsehole but I am very much aware that I acted like an arsehole. Anyways, I apologize for my rudeness [...]”.

“There was another issue which I should bring up, though I personally did not see it as a big issue, but others did. The creation of this reconfirmation RFA was seen by many to be POINTy (though I disagreed completely) and unnecessarily rushed through against normal procedures.” As Majorly points out correctly, these allegations do not apply in my opinion. However, if I had known that it would be that controversial, I would never have done it. It was not intended to be pointy at all, but simply bold. Again, I would not have done it if I would have been aware that it might be that controversial.

“A further issue I found was a block of Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) (again, I agreed with this block, but the crowd was divided). Further details can be found here, and here.” This block was clearly justified and resonable. Also, it was supported and endorsed by consensus on AN/I.

“A couple of days ago, this discussion took place on Aitias's talk, with some editors concerned about his ongoing issues.” Some may realise that these “some editors” are always the same: Majorly, Rjd and MZM. Also, Rjd was the one who made a mistake and I reverted it correctly — Rjd did admit that his edit was mistaken.

Taking everything into account, I think it's safe to say that I did at no time misuse, let alone abuse, my administrator tools; also, I never did violate WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL. There are, simply, certain editors (mostly Majorly, MZM and Rjd) who dislike me —they are, of course, perfectly entitled to that— however, the problem is that you can provide as many strong, undeniable arguments as possible, you can be proved right, and they still will remain unreasonable. They are, of course, perfectly entitled to that as well. However, if those people come here claiming that I would be unwilling to learn anything, everyone should be aware that this basically means nothing else than I don't give my blessing to everything they say. I am perfectly willing to learn and admit mistakes, but I am not willing to agree with everyhting they want me to agree. However, disagreeing with certain viewpoints of them is not a reason for desysoping or whatsoever. In case the Committee thinks it is, I am happy with that as well; I am not at all attached to the tools, I use them to do a lot of thankless work and to help the project, not because I would get a big bang out of using them. Anyway, thank you for your consideration. — Aitias // discussion 11:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum re. Rjd0060's concerns and explanation:

I agree with Rjd0060's et al. concerns, both above and below, and second that this case should go its usual way. However, I'd like to emphasise that this is not “an attempt to hinder Arbitration Committee proceedings” (as Rjd0060 called it above); I simply no longer feel like contributing here any longer. Also, please note that this is not a sign of disrespect for the Committee or the arbitration process, I am simply tired of this project.

Finally, I'd like to sincerely apologise to all persons who feel I was unfair/impolite towards them, who feel I have taken unfair/bad decisions, who feel I was an unfair/bad administrator and editor and I'd also like to truly apologise for any mistake I have made. I honestly can assure you that I have always acted with the best of intentions; I have always tried to do what I thought was the best for the project — if I have failed to do so, I am genuinely sorry.

Thanks,

— Aitias // discussion 15:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Avruch

I'm all for a tighter focus on standards of interaction and behavior for administrators, and I definitely thought the reconfirmation RfA for Jasonr was an example of seriously deficient judgment... But did this whole thing come about today because he used rollback instead of undo on his talkpage? Really? Avruch^T 03:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Master&Expert

I was just checking my watchlist to see if there were any discussions where I might want to offer up a third opinion. I have observed many things from Aitias over the course of a few months. While an entire RfAR is quite a surprise to me, I have to say I understand Majorly's concerns for bringing it here - and as awful as I feel about saying this, I have had serious questions regarding Aitias's judgment as an administrator for awhile, even before the Jasonr reconfirmation. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recall an incident which dates back to December 2008, where Aitias revoked rollback from another editor for performing a rollback on a good-faith edit. See the user talk discussion, though the link on his talk page thread does not work properly. I recall it was a new user or IP asking for assistance on an article that ABF rolled back, which was not an inappropriate use of rollback. It barely even warranted telling him to be mindful of using edit summaries when dealing with good-faith edits - much less completely revoking it for a one-off incident. The most that should have happened was a comment to ABF's talk page advising him to leave a note on the user talk page answering their question, and while Aitias did return rollback after the discussion, it was still superfluous to remove it in the first place. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Frank: I had noticed the exchange between you and Aitias when I was looking to see if anybody else noticed the incident with rollback; I hadn't noticed that he seems to have re-evaluated his decision later on. I agree with your last point. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iridescent

Although I was busy last week so only saw the drama unfold in retrospect, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with every word Majorly says. The concerns I raised at his RFA seem to have borne themselves out; although we don't overlap much, on every occasion I've come across him lately he seems to embody all our critics stereotypes of the abusive Wikipedia admin. Refusing to take criticism; apparent refusal to ever admit that other peoples' concerns might be valid (his going through all 29 points on the RFC refusing to admit that any were valid concerns was a particular lowlight); a "rules-are-rules" strict application of policy with no exception or appreciation of nuances; an apparent belief that "admin" gives some kind of super-user status ([[69], [70]); and a "shoot-first-and-ignore-any-questions" mentality. (I'm most familiar with this last from his block of Malleus, as I tend to work quite closely with Malleus and have his page watchlisted – I was even accused on Wikipedia Review of being Malleus's "obnoxious boor protector" – but one only has to skim his talkpage to see numerous other similar concerns.) – iridescent 03:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr.Z-man

I had a particular unpleasant experience with Aitias on the WP:PERM talk page in December and agreed with most of the points raised by Majorly on the RFC. I hoped that after Aitias' comments on the RFC that he had taken the advice of the people commenting and would try to improve how he interacts with other users; [71] and [72] suggest he either isn't willing or isn't able to. Whether the comment by Aitias on the RFC about "chilling out" and taking a break from RFR was a sincere statement quickly forgotten or an insincere statement to end the RFC quickly, I don't know. Mr.Z-man 04:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I may be interpreting Aitias' statement differently, but I don't see it just as lack of an agreement to improve his attitude, but outright denial that there might be any issue at all and attempting to shift the blame onto other people because they were being "unreasonable". In any case, taking a break from RFR and cooling down a tad was exactly what Aitias agreed to in the RFC (the diff is linked earlier in my comment) and yet here we are, less than a month after the RFC closed, the exact same problems as before. Mr.Z-man 14:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Goodmorningworld

Aitias is an abusive admin who enjoys hurting editors. <refactored by clerk User:Ryan Postlethwaite> His recent block of Malleus Fatuorum, where he was first seen chomping at the bit on AN/I to institute a block, and then gloating about it afterward, is a particularly egregious example, as is his counterfactual claim, right here on this page, that "consensus" existed for that block. As most will remember, DDStretch unblocked Malleus but his unblock was undone by Coren. In response, DDStretch resigned his administrator position. Aitias then came onto the Talk page of DDStretch to gloat some more. He needs to be kicked out of the admin corps ASAP.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I enacted the RfC closure. I am deeply disturbed by a few of the statements/replies above; it seems that RFC/U, after much effort, has become less of an attack zone than it once was, while the problem has grown worse at this venue. In any case....

Newyorkbrad has summarised my views on this, more aptly than I would have.

It's clear that a number of members of the community feel that the back on the camel has broken from this talkpage rollback incident, but I do think some clemency should be granted (and more time given) before jumping into yet another case, with guns at the ready. I think Aitias is trying to sort issues out, and subject to what was said in Newyorkbrad's comment, I think we can afford to grant a little more time before Aitias is dragged through what will essentially be an attack zone at arbitration.

At this point, more time and discussion-with-Aitias-by-editors-he-hasn't-been-involved-in-conflict-with would be helpful. At most, guidance via motions should be enough; if there is no progress being made even after that, and another incident blows up, then arbitration would be the best way forward - it would be ripe at that time as we would know the direction in which this ultimately needs to go. But I would rather suggest holding off from opening a case at this time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Rjd0060

Indeed, that is a reasonable point (I've already read, for example, the incident described in the statement below mine). Yet, I don't think it's unreasonable if someone were to say that we may be expecting a little 'too much, too soon'. I would've advised him to go on wikibreak, but I don't think it will be useful until that discussion (I talk about above) - that needs to happen before he took/takes a break, whether it's from editing or admining. That said, I am not strongly against opening a case - but I am, by a couple of feet, suggesting we don't open the case now, in favour of a bit more time. Of course, I will emphasise this is just merely my current opinion - there will be people who strongly disagree. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Swatjester

Thank you for clarifying your (lack of) involvement status. I'd certainly support desysopping or similar measures for administrators who will not accept criticisms of their actions. And unfortunately, there are some such admins that are still around. But I was suggesting he may be trying to remedy the issue; though if he is, would clearly needs to try much harder. I haven't really used the word 'improving' at this point (perhaps I won't be able to in the future either, but that remains to be seen). That said, concerns seem to be growing.

I've asked him if he is willing and/or able to discuss some of this off-wiki within the next 48 hours. Pending his response(s), soon, I will provide an update on whether my position has changed, along with a (hopefully) brief rationale. Thanks again, Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding FayssalF's vote: I'm rather amused by your comment, FayssalF. While you were an active arbitrator, on many occasions, you (among others) have ably demonstrated how much more flawed arbitration is in comparison to other avenues of dispute resolution. It's a community norm wherein multiple "requests" are made; whether it is at a talk page, a noticeboard, a WQA, for comment (aka an RfC), or even one for arbitration and clarification on arbitration. Regardless of how many occur within a certain timeframe, and whether it is appropriate, it is common practice. Your reason for accepting seems to be out of touch with what needs to be considered, and seems more like an excuse. It would've been more ideal to focus on the substantive issues, and instead, let the community worry about whether it needs to change or fix the flaws in its norms, or dispute resolution mechanisms.

If you (or any other arbitrator) found that the community was still in RfC at this venue, then it is your duty to direct them to do so in the appropriate venue, even if it is for the 2nd or 3rd time. The fact that you find that it seems to be happening on this page instead (and have thus, indirectly allowed it to be a replacement for actual 2nd RfC) is rather troubling, in my view. Practically, you have sent a message similar to this: when administrator is considered to be uncivil at WQA, and then another WQA is filed a month later, we can speedy close it it and direct them here to arbitration where they can have the second WQA, RfC, as well as arbitration - all in one central venue within hours/days of each other. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To some extent, it appears you've misunderstood my position, in part at least. I have not asserted that the dispute resolution processes mentioned are wholely flawed beyond repair - that was never my position, or I'd have found other ways around arbitration for many cases that did end up here. However, what I have indirectly asserted is that it is a matter of which areas each process is flawed in, what is being done to address the flaws, and more than that, my comment did dwell into the matter of proportions. To be clear, your understanding of the community view, in this case, wasn't flawed - the criticism I made was not of your vote, but of the rationale you specified in the original vote comment. That rationale dwells into issues that are not just insignificant in comparison to the issues that provoke the community view, but may also be considered, to some extent, irrelevant personal biases, that are ironically, not in line with the norms I talk about above - the very norms that the same community endorse, time and time again.

I think that the second and third sentences of my above paragraph is enough to address what you don't understand in essence, but I won't mind being more blunt. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update Aitias seems to have signalled that he has retired - see his user talk and user page history. ~~Further, I haven't received a reply to my email.~~ As he resigned his tools in the light of controversy, I urge arbitrators to develop a motion without wasting anymore time; given the manner in which this has occurred, he should not retain his tools for the duration of his departure. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Discussions have commenced between myself and Aitias (as implied from my talk page); unfortunately, I cannot put a time limit on when I can make further recommendations given that there are some clashes in our availability. I will try to leave an update tomorrow if possible. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~No update still; waiting for the reply. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Okay, a slight update as to a time limit - I intend on making my recommendations hopefully within (or slightly after) 24 hours of receiving the next reply. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Despite Lar's inability to control himself from indirectly or directly commenting about me, and adequate demonstration that he has no idea what he's on about, in line with my notes above, I've given my thoughts and recommendations off-wiki which are limited to really just 2 remedies; one which would result from a motion, or one which would result from a case. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no publically viewable motion because there were questions/issues that needed answering, some of which were provided with my recommendations to the Committee (as a result of the "waste of time and effort" discussions as described by one person). Notice also the timing between the motion and the update before letting more air inflate the head.

I've asked Lar to leave me alone, and he has ably demonstrated that he is incapable of doing so and reinforced this position in his reply and edit summary that is unbecoming of his status as an administrator and checkuser. To ensure fairness in the request, I've deliberately avoided interacting with or commenting on Lar, despite the many occasions on which I was invited to by others; one of the most notable examples being the elections that were organised by ArbCom. Whether it is because he thinks I'm joking, or whether he thinks he has a God-given right to stir trouble and harass other editors or whether it's because he thinks he can ignore concerns because of the extra buttons, I really don't know.

I jointly pose 2 questions. Can any other member of the community, or even the Committee, assert that it is reasonable for an administrator/checkuser to continually refuse to comply with a simple request to leave an editor alone? Is Lar under the impression that Wikipedia will burn if he doesn't continue targetting me, and that no other editors/administrators/checkusers are willing/able to deal with what I say/do? There was nothing in my actions here that warranted comment from him, or if I want to use the most strictest application of good faith, nothing necessitated his mention of me - there were many other ways he could've commented so as to imagine/feel that he was causing/effecting something wrt a motion.

So with the community and Committee having just seen you reinforce my point, I hope that this is the last time I need to formally interact with you; I make this request in the hope I won't need to request involuntary restrictions - Lar, please back off; please leave me alone; please don't interact with me; please don't comment on me; please don't mention me; please stop harassing me. I don't think that's too much to ask when I myself am making efforts to do that much with regards to you, particularly recently. I make this request here for 2 reasons; for community/Committee awareness, and because it is at this place and at this time that you precipitated a final request to be made. Thanks! Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tznkai

My interactions with Aitias have been brief, so I cannot say whether the problem I am about to describe is a single isolated incident, or indicative of a larger pattern of bad judgment.

On Febuary 26, I ran across an ANI thread concerning RMHED on a trolling spree. The incident in summary was RMHED was suffering burn out and needed to be blocked, reported by Aecis, and Caknuck blocking. Immediately after the block, several editors (myself included) started discussing the possibility of block extensions or unblock conditions. Most of us thought it was worthwhile to find away Throughout the course of the incident Aitias continued to urge for additional administrative intervention, and block extensions. Aitias aggressively argued against unblocking, although to be fair, he was called an "arsehole" repeatedly by RMHED. It became rapidly apparent to everyone except Aitiasthat he was inflaming the situation further. I perhaps too subtly invited Aitias to disengage from the discussion, and Wehwalt did so more bluntly as well. Aitias did not in fact disengage from the ANI thread or from the related thread on RMHED's talk page. Most disturbingly, even after RMHED's block was extended and it became clear that RMHED was done with talking, Aitias created an RfC/U (admin-viewable only, see also this notification). Which User:Spartaz deleted promptly. Aitias proceeded to argue that such deletion was abusive. It is clear to me that Aitias executed terrible judgment. Admins need to know when to back down - and more than other users, they must be able to let go from situations - avoid kicking users when they are down. I'd like to think this is an isolated incident, but if it is not, I strongly urge Aitias to give up his tools until he is reconfirmed by RfA.--Tznkai (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Originals for cross reference:

Comment:

I urge everyone to give Aitias some space for at least 24 hours before pressing for him to give up his tools and/or the committee to adopt a motion, continue with a case, or whatever. Remember that whole kicking when down thing being a problem?--Tznkai (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail from RMHED

I recieved this e-mail from RMHED via Wikipedia's e-mail user function. I have copied and pasted it without comment or edit.

Hello Tznkai,

I've just noticed the RFAR case filed about Aitias and see my name is frequently mentioned, so decided I'd email you. I see Aitias has quoted from an email I sent him, it would have been nice if he'd asked if it was OK beforehand, but seeing as how he never even acknowledged receipt of said email I'm not really surprised at this lack of courtesy. The full text of the email I sent Aitias is as follows;

"Aitias I just wanted you to know that I bear you no ill feelings. I called you an arsehole but I am very much aware that I acted like an arsehole.

Anyways, I apologize for my rudeness, I'm not doing this to try to get unblocked, I'm doing this because ultimately I believe you didn't act maliciously but did act in accordance with your conscience.

May peace and contentment be yours.

Regards,

RMHED"

I do indeed believe that Aitias's comments on the relevant ANI thread and on my talk page after my block weren't malicious. I do not believe that Aitias is an abusive admin I just think that he has a tendency to be intractable and inflexible. I think he basically just needs to lighten up a bit.

Please feel free to use the content of this email as you see fit, its main purpose was just to confirm that I did indeed email Aitias.

Regards,

RMHED

Comment by Frank

Reply to Master&Expert: I discussed this incident at some length with Aitias at the time. When that came up at the RfC, Aitias gave me what seemed a sincere re-evaluation of the actions after the fact, and I was content at that point to AGF. I really think that if Aitias would just relax and not be so quick to play the admin card, there would be no issue here. Frank | talk 20:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Malleus Fatuorum

I believe it to be fundamentally wrong for an administrator with a history of incivility to be sitting in judgement on the alleged incivility of others, and issuing blocks for behaviour that he himself is just as guilty of. I am not much concerned about the specifics of my own recent block; clearly Aitias was not alone in believing that to be an appropriate punishment. I am making a general point which I hope will be properly considered. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Seicer

As of several minutes ago, Alias presumably retired. I undid the indefinite full protection of his talk page, as it was unwarranted and unnecessary. seicer | talk | contribs 13:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has wiped his talk pages, to which I am contesting and seeking consensus to do so at WP:AN#Aitias's Right to Vanish. Please comment. seicer | talk | contribs 13:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: RTV does not mean continue editing, as he has indicated. seicer | talk | contribs 14:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Rootology

It's in the can for acceptance, standing at 8 accepts as I write this, but I urge the Arbs to not change their minds and carry through on acceptance and deciding if the admin in question should retain their tools based on their attitude and collective non-administrative actions as well, which is the key factor here in my opinion. As admins, our on-wiki actions, interactions, and attitudes should be fair game for determination by RFAR from the community if we can keep our tools, if our peers feel we have become a negative value to the community in any way.

As for the Aitias "retirement", unless he gives up the sysop bit and retires under a cloud, please continue the acceptance here. rootology (C)(T) 13:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: this is definitely open and should remain open until Aitias gives up the tools or the Arbitration case completes as Fritzpoll says. I asked Aitias here if he will request a desysop on Meta, and his only answer was to archive his active user talk to User talk:Aitias/archive 6 and then delete his talk page. rootology (C)(T) 13:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Fritzpoll

Without commenting on the specifics of the case at this time, Aitias' retirement doesn't mean anything in the context of this RfArb if he hasn't given up the tools. The account is still sysopped, and if a potential outcome of this request is desysopping, the Committee should not allow what may be a temporary retirement to subvert this request. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by roux

Echoing what Fritzpoll said, in the strongest possible terms. //roux 14:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding RTV: the right to vanish is given solely to users "in good standing." I suggest that Aitias is not such a user, and such a request should not be granted, lest we turn RTV into as much of a joke as most other WP policies and guidelines.

Statement by Tiptoety

I agree that the committee should not hold off on opening this case because Aitias has stated that he is retiring. First off, he is still making edits, and second he has yet to give up the administrative tools that resulted in this RfAr being filed. That said, since Aitias has stated he is/has resigned I am not sure a whole case would do any good as Aitias would not be contributing to the case. That said, I feel an appropriate course of action would be to file a desyop motion now.

Comment by Ottava Rima

Any retirement would not matter in this case. Some people retire for hours or days. We have no assurance of anything that will happen on his say so. An Arb case could result in a desysopping and/or a block, a ban from certain topics or actions, or some other restriction that would last for an extended time whereas his retirement may only happen for a few days. Our first rule is prevention and it is in the best interest to prevent Aitias from working in these areas as his presence alone is a net negative and a disturbance to the system. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Lar

Why is this hanging fire? Put up a motion to accept the apparent resignation, pass it, and go post to Meta that the AC collectively want the bit turned off, and move on. Waiting around for whatever Ncmvocalist is up to seems a waste of time and effort... if Aitias changes their mind, let them then ask for a new motion (and we can have the whole case we would have had) or whatever. ++Lar: t/c 20:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncmvocalist: "Despite Lar's inability to control himself from indirectly or directly commenting about me" ?? I will comment about whoever I think needs commenting about, whenever I think it appropriate. If someone wishes not to have me comment about them, they need only avoid doing things that are comment worthy. Ncmvocalist needs to focus less on me and my comments and more on the reasons for comment that are found in his own actions.

As for the rest, I note that before I said something, there was no publicly visible motion and we were hanging fire. Then I said something. Now there is a publicly visible motion, and a pretty good one at that, since it seems to be roughly along the lines I outlined, as far as they went, but with some considerable improvement. I won't necessarily claim cause and effect, but who knows? I urge swift passage of the motion. ++Lar: t/c 11:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by RegentSpark regarding motion

Oppose. While this seems fair and reasonable, I think it takes a guilty unless presumed innocent approach and presents the editor with a kind of Hobson's choice (take de-sysopping or something worse could happen). To be perfectly fair to the editor, it would be better to either proceed with the arbitration case or drop the case entirely. The only reasonable middle ground, IMO, is one where the editor is offered the choice of a wikibreak in return for dropping this arbitration case. That way there is no presumption of guilt and a messy arbitration case is avoided (or postponed). --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 02:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Comment: Aitias said he would post his statement at 20:00 UTC 3/15. Under the SOP, 24 hours after "net 4" would be 8:54 UTC 3/16 or 13 hours after Aitias is expected to post his statement. 48 hours after the case was filed will be 2:17 UTC 3/17 or 26 hours after Aitias is expected to post his statement. I think we should wait until 2:17 UTC 3/17 to open unless any of the arbs advise that the case is being fast tracked. MBisanz ^talk 09:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless there is an unexpected development, I don't see an issue with waiting the full time in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe some dates need to be added to MBisanz's times, as some of the times fall on different dates and are not on the same days. The 48 hours one in particular would seem to fall at 2:17 on 17 March. Unless there is an emergency, I think all arbs and interested parties should be given the time to see the request and comment. Not everyone is around when a situation "erupts" (I've only just become aware of this, for instance, and I try to check RFAR every 24 hours). I'll be reviewing the request over the next hour or so and giving my opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Whoops, I've edited my comment to add the dates. Will wait the 48 hours. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse - making a statement.--Tznkai (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've refactored one comment by Goodmorningworld because it was clearly a personal attack. Can all parties and commentators please remember to be civil even when directing criticism towards another editor. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse - as I think I participated in a few of the AN/I threads. Tiptoety ^talk 20:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (9/0/0/3)

Accept. Based on the issues raised as well as the RfC, this seems like something to look into. Wizardman 02:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Kirill ^[pf] 02:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting statement by Aitias. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read Aitias' statement and it does not address all the concerns that have been raised, but it might be a start. For example, Aitias has stated that he will no longer use rollback to revert without explanation good-faith edits on his talkpage, which helps to moot that issue. (The discussion that has taken place regarding whether one may use rollback liberally on one's own user talkpage, as opposed to elsewhere in one's userspace, strikes me as a classic example of letting analysis of the literal wording of a policy overpower the reasons behind the policy, but never mind.) Aitias has stated or implied that he will open no more "reconfirmation" RfA's, which is also good. I would welcome a greater recognition from Aitias that there have been a series of civility issues as perceived by several people, which is a serious problem for an administrator, and that his demeanor toward other users would benefit from modification. And I think it might be best if Aitias stepped away for awhile from dealing with rollback requests; the chaos that some people expected when non-admin rollback was implemented and any admin allowed to confer it has generally not occurred, and I would like to see extra effort by all to avoid drama associated with this or any future userrights grants. I would welcome comments on whether taking a case right now is the best way forward. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- General comment: Clear and forceful advocacy of one's position on the requests for arbitration page is welcome, but excessively strident language, such as calling another editor a "sociopath," should be avoided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold for now pending further clarification on what Aitias is going to do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting statement by Aitias. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Accept There seems to be sufficient cause for concern here. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. --bainer (talk) 07:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to add something like what Vassyana wrote below me, but he has and I agree with him. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accept. Other methods having been tried, ArbCom is the best chance for resolution. Cool Hand Luke 20:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept; the concerns expressed in the RfC warrant looking into. — Coren ^(talk) 00:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note; Aitias appears to have desire to retire; I see no reason to stop this case unless he gives up the administrators' tools (if that is his intent) however. If he does, then I will suggest that we close this case by motion with an annotation that he must request the bit again via RfA should he return. — Coren ^(talk) 13:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Have reviewed the RfC and am concerned that only 14 editors commented there, mostly giving different viewpoints and several criticising Majorly's approach to the RfC. Three editors endorsed Majorly's filing of the RfC. Atias endorsed his own response. One outside view got two endorsements (plus the author), another outside view got one endorsement (plus the author), another outside view got no endorsements other than by the author, another outside view got two endorsements (plus the author), and the final outside view got one endorsement (other then by the author). Also, the RfC was barely open for 5 days. I see now that it was closed due to Aitias making a statement agreeing with the desired objectives. Might I ask why the RfC cannot simply be reopened and updated to gather more comments, and left open regardless of what Aitias says (to avoid a repeat of the RfC closing early)? I have reviewed the further concerns Majorly has raised, and there are what appear to be troubling issues here, especially the behaviour surrounding the RHMED block, but I am uneasy with the course this dispute has taken, and am uncertain that any real attempt has been made to resolve the issues at earlier stages of dispute resolution. Carcharoth (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~For now, reject in favour of re-opening the RfC, or (better) starting a new one. Carcharoth (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)~~ Overtaken by events. Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Striking my reject as things have escalated to the stage where they need to be dealt with now. Responding to Lar's point above, the committee have been discussing the request and asking some questions, and we have been discussing what to do (maybe a template should be used for that purpose to indicate that a request is under discussion on the mailing list and not just 'hanging here'?). ~~I am currently drafting a motion, and will be posting that shortly.~~ Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Correction: another arbitrator has kindly offered to draft the motion, which means it will be ready quicker! Carcharoth (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would prefer to see a second RFC, or Aitias willingly back away from RFR and a few other areas where the trouble has brewed, in order to reduce chances of it flaring up again while the points made during the first RFC sink in. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to wait to hear from Ncmvocalist before deciding whether to accept a case or desysop due to the resignation. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I generally share the sentiments expressed by Carcharoth and Newyorkbrad. I would also note that the time and participation of the RfC was limited (albeit in large part due to Aitias' statement). However, I am inclined to accept this request. A clear pattern of behavior is being asserted as a continuing problem and we should take credible concerns about administrative misconduct very seriously. Disputes usually must exhaust the community's options before arbitration. Given the statements provided, it would be beyond my expectations to insist that the community holds another discussion. I cannot decline this request unless there are clear indications that another RfC will not simply lead to this case being heard some weeks down the road. (For example, Aitias showing that he understands the concerns and would heed the community consultation.) Vassyana (talk) 07:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept - We've long criticized RfC for being flawed. In fact, that should not be taken as granted since there are many succesful RfCs. But, for me, two RfCs in three months would mean that something is wrong and that the RfC process is really flawed (granted). Actually, we are already having a second RfC up here and it still seems that arbitration is needed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ncmvocalist, according to what I gathered from the whole comments and statements above, I understood that the community agree—in general—that arbitration is needed. After measuring the situation, I found myself agreeing with the need of an arbitration case —a position I explained aove. Now, while I do respect the analysis you reserved to the ArbCom process in general and to my positions in particular I still don't understand the fact of you commenting at this venue and making suggestions to the Committee when you believe this whole process is flawed. Please note that this is not personal criticism as much as it is a good faith analysis of the good faithed analysis you've just made. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accept — Roger Davies ^talk 13:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request suspended, no further edits should be made to it unless you are adding to the case as a party. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page.

Motion

This request for arbitration was filed to consider the administrator conduct of Aitias (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). A majority of the arbitrators have voted to accept the case, and ordinarily it would already have been opened.

While the request for arbitration was pending, Aitias indicated that he was invoking his "right to vanish." This suggested that Aitias intended as of then to leave Wikipedia, which would render arbitration unnecessary, and so we held off on opening the case. However, Aitias has not resigned as an administrator or stated an intent to do so. It appears that instead, he has decided to take a break from editing for some period of time, while retaining adminship.

I have no wish to add to any stresses that Aitias may find himself under, nor to induce him to leave Wikipedia if he would prefer to remain. At the same time, several experienced users and a majority of the arbitrators believe that Aitias' administrator conduct warrants review if he intends to remain as an administrator.

To address this situation in a manner that hopefully is fair to everyone, I offer a motion. (Suggestions for alternative solutions are also welcome.)

Motion:

This request for arbitration is temporarily suspended for up to 72 hours. Aitias is requested to officially advise us during this time whether he intends to continue as an administrator. Should Aitias be voluntarily desysopped within the next 72 hours, this request for arbitration will be closed as moot.

It is noted that if Aitias resigns while a request for arbitration is pending, any later request for restoration of Aitias' adminship would require either a new RfA or a vote of this committee (see, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch#Return of access levels; compare Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Proposed decision#Return of access levels). If Aitias were to request return of adminship after a break, the committee anticipates that it would invite community comment before addressing his request.

Should Aitias confirm that he will not resign as an administrator, or fail to respond within 72 hours, then the arbitration case will be opened at that time, unless otherwise directed by the committee.

Aitias is requested to refrain from any use of administrator tools until this matter is resolved.

Because there are 16 arbitrators, a majority is 9.

Support:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Wizardman 01:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gives Aitias time to consider his options. Would be reluctant to desysop purely based on the statements made at this RFAR, or on a refusal to take part in a case. Any desysopping case should be made in full, even if carried out in absentia, and look at all parties rather than be made on the basis of RFAR statements (warnings and admonishments by motion are a different matter). i.e. some decisions are best not made in the heat of the moment, but equally some requirement for an eventual response is needed to discourage other admins responding in this manner to a request being filed. This motion nicely balances these competing requirements. Carcharoth (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Risker (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This motion does not prejudge the outcome of a case, if one is opened. However if a case is not opened because the admin wishes to retire, we are denied the opportunity to assess evidence and come to a conclusion. As a result, the retirement should remain in effect until either the committee or community have reassessed the situation. Another approach that would be acceptable to me is a 12 month desysop, but that would depend on Aitias being agreeable to it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with John in that the motion does not prejudge the outcome of a case. I also agree with Carcharoth that a look at all parties actions would be necessary if a full case is opened. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. — Roger Davies ^talk 11:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I dislike having to judge someone in absentia, but we cannot coerce an editor to participate. — Coren ^(talk) 14:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Implementation notes

Motion passes 10/0/0. Arbitrators may still vote on the motion. 72 hours begins w.e.f. this signature timestamp. - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Wikipediocracy-related conduct		21 October 2024	4/1/2
Marine 69-71		26 October 2024	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Request for general clarification

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

Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Ryan_Postlethwaite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by Hipocrite

The comittee did not adress clearly enough if it was appropriate for an admin to "clarify" ArbCom rulings by stating they were taking an enforcement action and then detailing their "clarification" on the arbitration page. Is this an appropriate action in the general case, or are clarifications to ArbCom rulings which change the wording of the rulings (as opposed to interpretations, which do not change the wording of rulings) only to be made by the comittee?

I agree with Arb Coren, below. Hipocrite (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

Hipocrite needs to stop beating a dead horse. The committee said what SirFozzie did was correct and individual arbitrators also stated that his interpretation was the correct one. It's therefore clear to just about everyone that SirFozzies "clarification" would be a good statement to look at when thinking of applying sanctions to SA in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

The ruling had bred a pushmi-pullyu: on the one hand the committee states "formal clarifications are best articulated by the Arbitration Committee and may be sought by a request for clarification," but on the other hand commends SirFozzie for issuing a "clarification" (his original term[73]) on his own initiative. Such ambiguity tends to cause problems down the road. Arbcom could resolve this by clearly stating that SirFozzie was OK in this case because the policy was unclear, but in the future admins should not issue "clarifications" on their own initiative. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Abd

If I'm correct, SirFozzie stated his own interpretation of the existing ban. If that had changed the ban, it would have been improper. If it had been proposed as a rule that other admins must follow, likewise. But for an admin to state how he interprets a ban, and thus how he would enforce it, is simply disclosure. It's not necessary to go to ArbComm to state how one is going to interpret the ban. If someone doesn't like it, it can be discussed, and only if there isn't ready agreement does an RfAr/Clarification become necessary. SirFozzie's interpretation was not a "formal clarification" and it had no binding power.

The ban, in fact, was not unclear in substance, it was deliberately broad, and if not for the tendency of certain editors to jump to AN/I or ArbComm when they disagree with something, there would have been little disruption. I was taken to AE by the editor who filed this RfAr, and the one that ended up with a ban on SA, based on a totally bogus claim I was harassing ScienceApologist, immediately after he asked me to stop (to stop what I wasn't doing), and before I had any opportunity to respond. SA is now blocked in a way that is directly connected to the actions of this editor, and if there is anything to look at here, it would be his behavior. However, controlling point: no due process, no attempts to resolve a dispute (what dispute?) at a lower level than ArbComm, and no emergency. The request should be quickly declined, before we get even more disruption. --Abd (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GRBerry

Since everyone seems to agree that Sir Fozzie's "clarification" was actually an "interpretation", would someone just go change the word each time it appears in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Clarification of restriction on User:ScienceApologist (section title and two other places). I'd do it myself but that would create more useless drama given past history. GRBerry 18:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

I thought the second and third motions did clarify this, but just to make things clear:
- Administrators doing enforcement are allowed and encouraged to interpret the remedy as applicable. In particular, remedies worded to give leeway are meant to be tweaked to context (such as "construed broadly", "at discretion", etc).
- Administrators are also expected to make that interpretation clear, and making that explanation conspicuous is a valuable tool to do so.
- The log of enforcement is probably not the best place to do so, and in any case cannot change the wording of a committee decision without the assent of the committee. Changes that, in the opinion the the admins, should be done to the actual wording of the decision (as opposed to its interpretation) should normally be done here in a clarification request.
- In context, then, SirFozzie did a reasonable interpretation but "published" it in such a way as to inadvertantly make it unclear that it was an interpretation and not an actual modification of the remedy. There was obviously no foul there, but the committee has reiterated the correct procedure. — Coren ^(talk) 13:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat what I said in the previous request for clarification: "The decisions of the Committee will often need to be interpreted by admins acting at arbitration enforcement, or some other relevant venue. It's entirely reasonable, and indeed desirable, for admins to be making note of the way that they are interpreting decisions when they take enforcement actions under them. However, SirFozzie's posting had the potential for confusion, because of the use of the word 'clarification', which is also used by the Committee for its requests for clarification process. Stating that he was making a note of his interpretation would have avoided the confusion. As to the substance of SirFozzie's interpretation, I agree with it." To that I would merely add that interpretation is a matter for consensus among the enforcing administrators, and where consensus cannot be reached, or where there is some doubt or ambiguity, a request for clarification should be made to the Committee. As to SirFozzie's posting, it seems that the interpretation note has been removed anyway, so that issue is moot. --bainer (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not commenting on the specific case of ScienceApologist, but some thoughts in general:
- Administrators should try to interpret our decisions reasonably, taking into account the wording of the specific remedy as well as its underlying scope and purpose;
- Arbitration discussion on the /proposed decision page or elsewhere on the case pages may sometimes provide guidance as to what was intended, if it is unclear;
- Where an editor may have been relying in good faith on an interpretation of the ruling that differs from that of an administrator on AE, the circumstance may call for a warning that the ruling has been misconstrued, rather than an immediate block or pageban;
- The committee unanimously observed in the Zeq-Zero0000 case that "an administrator or other editor who takes an action in reliance on a good-faith, reasonable interpretation of an Arbitration Committee decision should not be subject to sanction for that action";
- Where there is disagreement on how a ruling might best be interpreted, the issue can be discussed on AE or another appropriate page;
- Where there is continued disagreement or the ruling is unclear on its face, a request for clarification can be filed on this page; Alternatively, although one arbitrator cannot speak for the committee, in certain circumstances it can be helpful to ask the arbitrator who drafted the decision for his or her view;
- If possible, interested editors should review proposed decisions before they are finalized, and use the talkpage to alert the arbitrators to potential ambiguities at that time, thereby avoiding later disputes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was about to suggest what GRBerry said, but I see Jehochman has commented out SirFozzie's clarification (rather than remove it entirely). On reflection, that is probably for the best, as my current view is that using words like "clarification" creates potential for confusion. I also think that such interpretations should only be logged at the case pages if an actual action has been taken. Merely stating what one admin's interpretation is of a remedy, doesn't really count as an enforcement action. If an admin needs to explain a block or warning carried out under the terms of a remedy, then that is the point at which to explain their interpretation. Carcharoth (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{Verifiability/Use English/Burdens in proxy battlefield article}

Initiated by Tenmei (talk) at 20:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Tenmei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Teninvestor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Diff. 1
Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by {Party 1}

This complaint encompasses 3 specific issues and 1 broader topic. Teeninvestor's refusal to agree to mediation thwarted the opportunity to have his views confirmed or modified. I cannot walk away from this because the concepts are at the very heart of my participation in collaborative writing. ArbCom cannot allow this to go unaddressed because the consequences are too grave:

Issue 1: I posted the following diff; and if I was wrong in any part of it, I must know so that I will not continue to make similar mistakes in the future.

Teeninvestor insists that words and actions consistent with this diff are disruptive. If what I've said and done is persistent disruption, it needs to stop.

When I and others questioned an unfamiliar text in Chinese, Teeninvestor asserted forcefully that I and others had the burden to prove error before deleting the edit and/or before posting a "dubious"-tag or a "synthesis"-tag on an article page. This view was expressed with increasing levels of derision personal affronts. Example: diff. If what I've done is persistent vandalism, it needs to stop.

Issue 2. Teeninvestor denies that WP:V incorporates any WP:Burden other than formatting. Example: diff If

Issue 3. Teeninvestor denies that WP:RSUE incorporates any WP:Burden in Chinese. Example: diff

Issue 4: In Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty, real-world factions have vied for control, turning it into a polemical battleground. In the venue which evolved before my eyes, long-term warriors are have proven to be toxic. Under "battlefield" conditions as I encountered them, academic integrity becomes a an all-encompassing priority. Any other course of action undercuts the credibility of the article and our collaborative wiki-encyclopedia. Although Issues 1-3 stand on their own, they have become conflated in real-world disputes over 21st-century borders or oil and mineral rights. The initial impetus for this article was "salting the earth" in an article about Central Asia in the 7th-8th century in order to undercut a dispute in an article about China in the 12th-13th centuries; and the article has been continually attacked by those intending to affect current affairs by re-writing history. This perverts my ability to conribute to an article about a relatively minor topic; and it became increasingly difficult to follow on a coherent thread of reason.

The title of Inner Asia during the Tang Dynastysuggests something to do with the history of 7th-8th century Central Asia, but an unexplained backstory or sub-text intruded unexpectedly again and again. This bigger problem cannot be resolved with this case, but at lest ArbCom is now expressly alerted to the existence of a pernicious metastasis which will return ad nauseam until effective counter-measures can be contrived.

Statement by {Party 2}

Clerk notes

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

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

@@ Line 766: / Line 766: @@
 *Was about to suggest what GRBerry said, but I see Jehochman has commented out SirFozzie's clarification (rather than remove it entirely). On reflection, that is probably for the best, as my current view is that using words like "clarification" creates potential for confusion. I also think that such interpretations should only be logged at the case pages if an actual action has been taken. Merely stating what one admin's interpretation is of a remedy, doesn't really count as an enforcement action. If an admin needs to explain a block or warning carried out under the terms of a remedy, then that is the point at which to explain their interpretation. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 08:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
+----
+=== {Verifiability/Use English/Burdens in proxy battlefield article} ===
+'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) '''at''' 20:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
+==== Involved parties ====
+<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
+*{{userlinks|Tenmei}}, ''filing party''
+*{{userlinks|Teninvestor}}
+<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->
+;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
+<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
+*Diff. 1
+*Diff. 2
+;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
+<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
+*Link 1 [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]]
+*Link 2 [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty]]
+==== Statement by {Party 1} ====
+This complaint encompasses 3 specific issues and 1 broader topic.
+[[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]]'s refusal to agree to mediation thwarted the opportunity to have his views confirmed or modified.  I cannot walk away from this because the concepts are at the very heart of my participation in collaborative writing.  ArbCom cannot allow this to go unaddressed because the consequences are too grave:
+*Issue 1: I posted the following [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty&diff=277315106&oldid=277297551  diff]; and if I was wrong in any part of it, I must know so that I will not continue to make similar mistakes in the future.
+::[[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] insists that words and actions consistent with this diff are disruptive.  If what I've said and done is persistent [[disruption]], it needs to stop.
+:::When I and others questioned an unfamiliar text in Chinese, [[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] asserted forcefully that I and others had the burden to prove error <u>before</u> deleting the edit and/or <u>before</u> posting a "dubious"-tag or a "synthesis"-tag on an article page.  This view was expressed with increasing levels of derision personal affronts.  Example: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty&diff=next&oldid=277740708  diff].  If what I've done is persistent [[vandalism]], it needs to stop.
+*Issue 2. [[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] denies that [[WP:V]] incorporates any [[WP:Burden]] other than formatting. <u>Example</u>: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty&diff=277754595&oldid=277752757  diff]  If
+*Issue 3. [[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] denies that [[WP:RSUE]] incorporates any [[WP:Burden]] in Chinese. <u>Example</u>: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty&diff=277860375&oldid=277859898  diff]
+*Issue 4: In [[Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty]], real-world factions have vied for control, turning it into a polemical battleground. In the venue which evolved before my eyes, long-term warriors are have proven to be toxic.  Under "battlefield" conditions as I encountered them,  academic integrity becomes a an all-encompassing priority.  Any other course of action undercuts the ''credibility'' of the article and our collaborative wiki-encyclopedia.  Although Issues 1-3 stand on their own, they have become [[conflated]] in real-world disputes over 21st-century borders or oil and mineral rights. The initial impetus for this article was "[[salting the earth]]" in an article about Central Asia in the 7th-8th century in order to undercut a dispute in an article about China in the 12th-13th centuries; and the article has been continually attacked by those intending to affect current affairs by re-writing history.  This perverts my ability to conribute to an article about a relatively minor topic; and it became increasingly difficult to follow on a coherent thread of reason.
+::* A. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty&diff=277682625&oldid=277642965 genesis of battlefield]?
+::* B. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Teeninvestor&diff=274263371&oldid=274128938  genesis of a "tag team" coordination]?
+::* C. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty&diff=next&oldid=274263955 mongolia was owned by chinese before mongols ever appeared, and belongs to china]?
+::* D. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty&diff=277528002&oldid=277521374  Chinese histiography is quite reliable. In any case, its far better than vain attempts to create a supposedly "Mongolian" identity]?
+The title of [[Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty]]suggests something to do with the history of 7th-8th century Central Asia, but an unexplained [[backstory]] or sub-text intruded unexpectedly again and again.  This bigger problem cannot be resolved with this case, but at lest ArbCom is now expressly alerted to the existence of <u>a pernicious metastasis which will return ''ad nauseam'' until effective counter-measures can be contrived</u>.
+==== Statement by {Party 2} ====
+==== Clerk notes ====
+:''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.''
+==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ====
+*
 ----