Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:19, 24 December 2012

Requests for arbitration

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
SchuminWeb	Motions	17 December 2012	{{{votes}}}
Jerusalem	Motions	16 December 2012	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Aug 2024	03 Sep 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: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	Motion	none	26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	none	none	17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	8 September 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

SchuminWeb

Initiated by Mangoe (talk) at 16:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

mangoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
S Marshall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ironholds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
GiantSnowman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Centpacrr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note: There are potentially a long list of participants in this, as I'll note below. I've limited this to the subject of the case, myself, User:S Marshall as the proposer of the desired outcome, and the other next three as the major participants in the actual conflicts that brought about this request. If some of those I've listed decide they don't want to go forward with this, I'm OK with their removal from the case.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] notice posted at the RfC

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This is as a follow-on to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SchuminWeb. Other steps have not been undertaken in part because SchuminWeb has been completely unresponsive and indeed has not edited since 27 November, and in part because the consensus response of the RfC would require ARBCOM to carry it out.

Statement by Mangoe

The immediate genesis of this case lies in the RfC linked above. I'm not going to repeat everything that is in that case, but will try to point out a few salient points.

There have been complaints for at least a couple of years about SchuminWeb's imperious and idiosyncratic use of his admin powers in closing deletions, particularly with respect to fair-use images. This has come to a head at least twice that I know of. Most recently, he deleted a bunch of TV show screenshots which were used in articles on specific episodes. This came to deletion review as a mass request in which SchuminWeb did not participate. This is not atypical, as in the RfC various people pointed out how he was wont to delete requests to reconsider his decisions by saying "take it to DRV." The DRV upheld his deletions, but it also raised awareness of his behavior a lot. Thus, when the RfC was started, his behavior found lots of additional detractors, and no real defenders, again, not including himself.

But this all had happened before, as reviewed in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/SchuminWeb#The Wikibreak in December 2011 and what preceded it. Last year he started a campaign against a set of fair-use images from the Denver Public Library and some related images, beginning with a deletion in September 2011 which was overturned. Most of these images were uploaded back in 2005 by users who haven't edited in years, so it was easy to delete a lot of them simply because (a) they weren't being watched anymore, and (b) SchuminWeb often employed tactics which allowed him to delete the image before anyone knew it was marked for deletion. This campaign increasingly ran into opposition. Centpacrr got caught up in this because a lot of his articles were losing images, and he was more vocal in chasing down the FfDs and objecting. In the middle of this SchuminWeb marked a personal picture of Centpacrr for deletion, first because of a logo, but then on the grounds that someone else had been holding the camera. This elicited a lot of complaint, as did a completely unrelated fair-use deletion in which SchuminWeb closed his own deletion nomination (which was overturned). SchuminWeb then largely dropped out of Wikipedia for the next month or two, ostensibly to work on his personal website.

Be that as it may, the consensus of the RfC was that we do not want him coming back after this dies down and resuming his administration work. His complete lack of response to criticism of his behavior, we felt, is unacceptable. I personally would be satisfied if he were barred from the deletion processes, but the expressed consensus was that his administration rights be removed. Mangoe (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On NFCC: It is, perhaps, a tedious job to do these NFCC deletion nominations, but it is a thankless and largely pointless job to bother reviewing them. Right now I've been through the remaining Simpsons screenshots in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 November 18, and while I would agree that a lot of the survivors could be readily deleted, I strongly suspect that the administrator who appears to be running through them now is going to ignore any "keep" messages I left and delete them anyway. Of the 160 Twilight Zone pictures in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 November 19, nobody has the stamina to look through them all, and I assume that the nominator read exactly none of the articles in which they appear, given that he used Twinkle to knock them off in less than an hour.

The big problem is that the subjectivity of NFCC#8 is being ignored. What it should mean is that disputes about whether it is being satisfied need to be addressed in a discussion whose consensus should prevail. What's happening instead is that admins like ShuminWeb have appointed themselves supreme judges and often supervote. In his case (and again, he isn't the only one) he treated challenges to his judgement with contempt, and when confronted with the problems in behaving this way, he turned around and did it again. NFCC may be a chore, but is not a crusade against stupid uploaders, and that's the way it came across. Mangoe (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the motion to desysop: I object to him retaining his admin rights due to retirement. It's unreasonable that we should have to actively monitor him for returning so we can see whether the issues need to be re-raised. Mangoe (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MBisanz

The broad nature of the support behind the concerns raised at the RFC makes this request even more weighty and deserving of the Committee's attention. While I know the Committee has in the past declined to hear cases regarding a party in absentia, I agree with TParis' point at the RFC that permitting further administrative action by Schumin in absence of a response and resolution to the concerns raised is impermissible. I would suggest the Committee pass a series of motions in line with the March 22 motions regarding Aitias to resolve the matter pending Schumin's return. MBisanz ^talk 18:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by S Marshall

I do not recall ever being in conflict with SchuminWeb. I am not here to raise a beef with him. My position is simply that the community has expressed concerns about SchuminWeb's use of the admin tools, and admins must answer such concerns when they are raised. They should not be permitted to hide from them. I assume good faith, so I must suppose that SchuminWeb's sudden wikibreak at this time is a coincidence rather than a tactical withdrawal in the face of questions he cannot answer. If so, the appearance of justice is of the essence. A temporary desysop will prevent SchuminWeb from returning to use the tools later without facing the process.

The alternative possibility, that SchuminWeb has been driven away because he is unwilling to face his accusers because he finds questions about his use of the tools stressful, is incompatible with being an admin on Wikipedia. Answering questions about your tool use is not optional, so this too leads to a desysopping.

However, the desysopping should not be understood as a punishment. SchuminWeb is entitled to answer the accusations that have been made against him before we reach any conclusions. Rather than a punishment, the desysopping I propose should be understood as a technical measure designed to prevent any accidental failure to follow the correct process. It follows that in the event that SchuminWeb reappears, he should be resysopped. In this case the Committee will, no doubt, want to assure itself SchuminWeb is genuinely engaging in a community discussion about his tool use.—S Marshall T/C 18:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's discussion below about NFCC#8 and what constitutes normal practice at FFD. The correct venue for discussing SchuminWeb's actions in this specific case is deletion review. The correct venue for a broader discussion about whether NFCC#8 is appropriately phrased or how it should be dealt with is a community RFC. I urge ArbCom to focus on the desysopping issue and not get sidetracked into open-ended discussion on broad issues that the community can handle.—S Marshall T/C 12:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the motions: There are two kinds of evil to avoid. One is the evil done to SchuminWeb by desysopping him without hearing him. The other is the evil done to the community by allowing contributors to avoid consequences by retiring or seeming to retire. ArbCom should find the latter evil the greater.
If SchuminWeb has really retired then desysopping him does him no harm. If he has not, then ArbCom's unwillingness to desysop would harm the community. Removing the tools should be described as a technical measure designed to ensure that this user engages with community concerns if he comes back, and not as a punishment in absentia, but ArbCom shouldn't shrink from doing it.
If we had a functioning community de-adminship process, then surely SchuminWeb would not survive it.—S Marshall T/C 17:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On motion #2: This wrongly puts an onus on the community to watch SchuminWeb's actions for breaches, instead of rightly putting the onus on SchuminWeb to contact the community before getting his tools back.—S Marshall T/C 16:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the opposes to motion #4: Do we look like a howling lynch mob? Are we waving pitchforks, or preparing to tar and feather? Is the Witchsmeller Pursuivant in charge? Or is this a consensus of moderate and reputable editors with concerns?
Based on my experience with RFC and ArbCom, it strikes me that there's a strong incentive for anyone who's in the wrong not to engage with the process, because if you talk to people you'll get sanctions but if you just stay away from Wikipedia, then there will be lots of wringing of hands and no action at all, and it'll all blow over. The resolutions you prefer place a duty on "someone" to watch the SchuminWeb account for actions that transgress—but nobody is watching the SchuminWeb account and nobody will watch it. Because we're not a howling lynch mob.
Please reconsider, thanks.—S Marshall T/C 10:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GiantSnowman

I'll be as brief as I can - partly for time, and partly because there's no need to repeat what's already been said at the RFCU (of which I was a certifier). For me, the issue is two fold - it relates to the inappropriate deletion of images against apparent consensus, and it also relates to SchuminWeb's failure to engage with any subsequent discussions on the matter. There have been disucssions at DRV, AN, his own talk page and finally the RFCU - as far as I can tell he has not appropriately engaged on the matter at any venue. Giant Snowman 18:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved Point of Order from User:Hasteur

In response to the 18:13, 17 December 2012 message of Courcelles, SchuminWeb ceaced editing prior to the instigation of the RfC/U. Hasteur (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The RfC/U was closed citing that SchuminWeb has not edited prior to the RfC starting. Several highly endorsed viewpoints of concern, and that the issue was referred to ArbCom. So the ball is now in ArbCom's court. Hasteur (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Quasihuman

As one of the three editors who's questions about this administrator's deletions was removed as chastisement [7] on 27 November, I consider myself at least semi-involved. I won't repeat what I said on the RFC. Despite what I said on the talk page [8], I now believe that action by ArbCom is necessary given Mangoe's evidence here. The questions raised about SW's compliance with WP:ADMINACCT are strong enough for me to believe that he should not use his tools until he addresses the issue. Mangoe's evidence leads me to believe that his disappearance is a way of avoiding the issue rather taking time out to reflect on it. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 18:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Hersfold: SW may not have been aware of the RfC, but it is reasonable to assume that he was aware it was coming down the tracks, it was flagged up in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive242#Admin smoke signals needed that it was headed there before he stopped editing (and he didn't participate in the AN discussion either). Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 19:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a danger that this case may be side-tracked by the NFCC issue, which I believe is a side-issue at best. In fact SW did respond to the questions about the Simpson's images, see [9] & [10]. It was the lack of response to User:TonyTheTiger's question about a template deletion that led to the AN, and SW lack of response to the AN which led to the RFC. ADMINACCT is the issue here, not NFCC. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 17:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs - The wording of your motion would allow SW to make speedy deletions or PROD deletions. I wonder if this wise, given that one of the questioned deletions was a speedy. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 14:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hahc21

As a participant of the RFC, and after investigating SchuminWeb's past administrative actions, as well as they way he interacts with users (administrators included) that question his actions, I consider that an arbitration case is needed. To try not to rewrite what has been said in the RFC, seems like Web's behaviour when heavily confronted because of his questionable actions is to take an unannounced wikibreak, and return when things have calmed down to avoid any procedure to take effect against him in a preventative way. There is a clear concern by a considerable part of the community about the way he uses personal preferences over policy when it comes to delete images. As Mangoe states in the RFC, seems like Web's modus operandi is to silently orphan the images and then tagging them as such before deleting them, although he has also showcased move visible actions against consensus in deletion discussions. In my personal opinion, this is a very alarming way to game the system and to achieve his goals against the standard procedure for the deletion, and discussion of deletion, of images (and non-free content in general). This is not a new behaviour recently spotted from SchuminWeb; previous issues out of his behaviour have been appointed in the last 5 years, starting from his very request for adminship in 2007, when one of the opposers stated that he'd "be worried that his actions as an admin would be more about him than the encyclopaedia", which has been demonstrated by his actions. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have tweeted SchuminWeb. As he seems to be very active on Twitter, there is no way he cannot be aware now. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update #2: I have established communication with SchuminWeb and he aknowledges his awareness of this case. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update #3: I have no intentions to hurry up the committee; this is not an emergency case and there is no need to rush procedures. That said, I'd like to add another tweet. From this information, I won't expect any response from SchuminWeb anytime soon, so this case will have to follow without him. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Centpacrr: The case is already accepted, and all further needed information should be provided when it begins. There is no need to keep expanding your statement in this moment, as it will look like you have a great personal interest in the matter. What needs to be done, will be done, and what doesn't need to be done, won't. Arbitrators have already expressed their willingness to suspend SW's administrative tools as a preventative measure until the case is started, so my opinion is that no more additional information is needed by now. I may be incorrect, of course. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Youreallycan

He is aware of this and had not commented at all - he failed to comment at his RFC user and here also- he claims he is close to putting up the retired template - I say remove his advanced permissions immediately - his lack of communication and effort to explain his edits which as an admin he has a responsibility to do are damning = deysop - I will add that I agree completely with his cautious interpretation of the wikipedia foundations copyright and non free use statements but he needs to comment to defend them and his admin actions here. Youreallycan 20:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Beyond My Ken

Doing an entirely unrelated task, I've just discovered that on November 19th SchuminWeb, without any consensus discussion that I can find, changed the wording on every "Non-free" template so that they no longer required an "Appopriate rationale" but instead a "Complete rationale". To do this on a number of templates that are fully protected, he had to use his admin bit to make the change. Is the use of admin powers to make potentially controversial edits on locked templates without discussion allowed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted SchuminWeb's edits to unprotected templates, as not being the result of a consensus discussion, and therefore being Bold edits that I have Reverted per WP:BRD, and I filed edit requests for the protected templates that SchuminWeb made this edit on, but I'm somewhat disappointed that no admin has stepped up to undo those edits - after all, with no discussion or consensus behind them, these are the personal edits of SchuminWeb, and it doesn't seem at all reasonable for him to make Bold edits using his admin bit that cannot be reverted by other editors in the WP:BRD process, unless they, too, have the bit. I suggest that some admin needs to rise to the occasion and revert to the status quo ante until a discussion cane be mounted that covers these changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently addressed, see here--SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by non-quite-involved Masem

I've been involved in the post discussion on the validity of the FFD closings in the DRV and subsequent ANI thread and on KWW's talk page (who closed the DRV), and do agree some trouting of SchuminWeb was needed for what seemed to be blind closing of all of those. (this being unaware of any previous actions this case against Schumin is bringing up).

I do want to point out that when one steps away from the mass closure, the individual closes that SchuminWeb did followed normal practice at FFD for most of the images given. That is, they only has 2-3 !votes, one from the nominator and a couple others - this is typical of FFD (and a possible issue, as we really should have more input, which I'm trying to figure out how to address by a slight change in FFD nominating practice). The nom gives a policy reason, the two others do not, and because we're talking NFC policy where we usually default to delete if we can't prove the image meets NFC, the deletions were generally appropriate. The ones that were subsequently individually challenged sometimes did, sometimes didn't, have more discussion and Schumin should have closed those no consensus (hence the trout for doing this too fast). But of about 260 others, Schumin had every reason and support from previous FFDs to close those as he did.

This is no way to approve or disapprove any other action Schumin may be investigated with. --MASEM (t) 21:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Elen's statement below: The relevant Foundation policy does not have anything in it that resembles clause 8. Perhaps it's time to hold another discussion about NFCC. Our en.wiki NFCC policy has had #8 prior to the Foundation Resolution, and in fact the Foundation used our NFCC as an example of an appropriate EDP. Yes, #8 is the most subjective of the NFCC clauses, but most editors basically have come to understand that "if there is sourced discussion of the image or what the image represents in the article the image is used in, it meets NFCC#8". That said, I point to my statement above: FFD has normally operated on very little input with defaults to delete if there's no counterstatements to the nominator's statement that reflect policy. That itself is a problem that needs to be addressed by better notification of interested parties (as right now the only requirement for notification is the uploader, who may be long-gone as an editor). I do not believe that a NFCC discussion would be needed, given that the policy is always under some type of review, and that my perception is that the bulk of editors know what they need to provide for NFCC#8. Schumin's closure of these, outside of rapid fire closing, under NFCC policy really isn't the issue, since any other admin that regularly closes FFD would likely have closed these the same way. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Kurtis: We have non-free content review to discuss images with questionable NFCC-meeting uses but without the demand of admin action to complete. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Centpacrr

NOTE: At Arb request I have edited down my original Statement to roughly 500 words. The full original text of my statement with greater detail and additional links to be considered when the ArbCom case is formally opened can be found here.

VERSION EDITED FOR SPACE

I fully concur with all the statements supporting desysop above and particularly by the summary posted by Mangoe, the user who filed this case, at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/SchuminWeb#The Wikibreak in December 2011 and what preceded it. I find this statement to be an accurate summary of just some of the improper misuse by the subject Admin of the tools and powers which have been entrusted to him by the community particularly with regard to the fair use of non-free images (as well as on several images for which I clearly owned the copyright), the Admin's routinely ignoring of community consensus, his disrespectful, and dismissive attitude toward "ordinary" editors with whom he has disagreed. I find particularly unacceptable the subject Admin's use of those tools to impose his own particular "interpretations" of WP's policies and guidelines by unilaterally deleting content clearly against consensus many of which are later reversed on appeal, altering fully protected templates without discussion as noted immediately above, and engaging in practices such as the mass removal of long standing fair use images from from articles (and the rationales from the images' host pages), and then using that as a reason to speedy delete them as "orphaned non-free" files. This Admin has also engaged in a wide variety of other similar such practices in order to "game" or subvert both the spirit and the letter of WP policies and guidelines and done so over a long period of time.

After my interactions with this Admin in the Fall of 2011 over several the fair use Perry railroad images in which some of his deletions and other actions were reversed, in apparent retaliation he then systematically went through all of the images which I had uploaded over time (most of which I had created, otherwise owned the copyright, or were clearly in PD) and challenged most of them on a variety of specious grounds resulting in the necessity to waste large amounts of time to defend them. In the course of this "campaign" against my image file contributions this Admin also gratuitously accused me of "vandalism" on the completely unsupported grounds that I was "uploading disruptive images with no encyclopedic value", a completely meaningless claim. Even if that were true (which is wasn't), that does not in any way constitute "vandalism" (which is defined as "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia such as by adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense") and is a very serious charge and violation of assuming good faith for any editor to make, and especially so for an Admin.

I found this experience to be both intimidating and a clear case of overt "Wikistalking" by using the powers of an Admin to retaliate against me for successfully challenging his previous administrative actions. I in fact at the time came very close to leaving the project altogether because of the subject Admin's abusive behavior (carried out in conjunction with another Admin who is now retired and has resigned his adminship) toward both me and my contributions to WP.

In my view the only satisfactory outcome to this process is to involuntarily desysop this user with prejudice but permit him to remain as an active "ordinary" editor if he wishes to remain so. Centpacrr (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

VERSION EDITED FOR SPACE

ADDITIONAL NOTE RELATING TO PENDING ARBCOM MOTIONS: I fully endorse the statement of KillerChihuahua at 1.1.23 below which is "spot on" on both the real desysopping issue relating to the subject Admin's long term unacceptable behaviors (including ignoring consensus, "gaming" the system, high handed and dismissive treatment of anyone who disagreed with his actions, and refusal to be accountable to the community) in clear violation of the tenants of WP:ADMINACCT, and how he has previously used periodic specious "Wikibreaks" when things got hot to avoid explaining his misuse of the Admin tools ("bits"). KillerChihuahua's statement accurately and succinctly elucidates why the Admin bits need to be immediately and permanently removed with prejudice.

If as in this case a defendant/respondent holds him or herself voluntarily and deliberately in absentia after due notice to respond to process, and there is proof positive that he or she is aware of the RfC or RfA, then such intentional silence (i.e. refusal to participate in the process) on the part of the subject Admin (especially invoking "Retirement" which is prima facie evidence that there is no intention to ever respond) to avoid accountability should be considered an affirmative, irrevocable, and absolute de facto and de jure renunciation by him or her of Adminship and access to its tools. Centpacrr (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft Please note that most of the Statements posted in this RfA have much less to do with NFCC itself, and are much more about the subject Admin's long standing patterns of incivility and intemperate language in dealing with the community, episodes of retaliative Wikistalking against editors with which he had disagreements, ignoring consensus, employing subterfuge and inappropriate techniques to "game" the system, unilaterally and surreptitiously altering protected templates without discussion, failing to respond to process or the questions of others about his administrative actions, and a variety of other violations of the spirit and letter of WP:ADMINACCT. The Statements posted here also came from a wide cross section of WP editors giving accounts of incidents unrelated to each other. Some may have issues of interpretation of NFCC at their origin, but the way that the subject Admin mishandled them is what resulted in the RfC and RfA. Centpacrr (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens (In Arb comments) Exactly my point: intentional silence (i.e. refusal to participate in the process) on the part of a subject Admin to avoid accountability (and especially invoking "Retirement" which is prima facie evidence that there is no intention to ever respond) should be considered an affirmative, irrevocable, and absolute de facto and de jure renunciation of Adminship and access to its tools. Centpacrr (talk) 05:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kww (peripherally involved)

I closed the DRV related to SchuminWeb's mass deletion. I'm not aware of any previous interactions with him, although undoubtedly there are some trivial ones. This looks to me to be a problem that all admins face, and I'm well aware of how difficult it can be to deal with. The NFCC criteria represent a case where the editors that attempt to ignore or subvert the criteria work en masse. Wikipedia is rife with WP:NFCC#8 violations, and any admin that tries to deal with it winds up with cases where, indeed, hundreds of images need to be deleted at once. It's a fair bet that if every admin deleted a hundred WP:NFCC#8 violations a day we wouldn't be done for several months. Since SchuminWeb is one of the few that tries, he gets abused and constantly dragged to DRV. After a while, he's faced with two choices: stop working, or stop responding to what has become a chronic source of irritation and annoyance. In turn, we have two choices: we can either give in to the hordes that insist on decorating Wikipedia with screenshots, or we can figure out how to be more supportive of admins that wind up in his situation. I think there's a case here, but the case needs to be determining a way to help the SchuminWebs in our admin corps, not simply allowing the horde to smother an opponent by sheer weight of numbers.—Kww(talk) 22:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I think SchuminWeb is probably a lost cause. I would strongly object to using this discussion as a platform for undermining NFCC#8, though, and I don't think Arbcom has the right to do so. What we need is a mechanism to deal with the situations where we have large clusters of users that ignore our polices and grind down the admins that enforce them.—Kww(talk) 16:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support Collect's notion of making this a general remedy.—Kww(talk) 16:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lexein

~~(peripherally involved and having no position)~~ ~~This was originally a response to Kww, above and Removed by author as irrelevant to the purpose of this page~~ Starting over:

I was directly involved with discussion at the mass FfD, mass close, and its DRV, and ongoing discussion on Schuminweb's talk page. I'm glad Masem stated: Yes, #8 is the most subjective of the NFCC clauses, but most editors basically have come to understand that "if there is sourced discussion of the image or what the image represents in the article the image is used in, it meets NFCC#8" This point, raised at several FFD discussions, and proven, was not replied to by Schuminweb prior to closing. To me, this is a red flag. Whether closed "blind" or "read and ignored", I consider this to be breaking faith, and admins just shouldn't do it. I did not expect 272 comments, just (perhaps) six, in truth, and closed "no consensus", or not closed yet. Default-to-delete and I-hate-this-job may be an observed phenomenon, but should not be used as a reason to delete which overrides discussion. Especially when it just dumps the mess on others to deal with. You get the admin bit, you get to be patient.

Some NFCC language is subjective, and should be clarified by more examples, because it is the source that delete/keep "sides" are both saying is "theirs." Expanding on this briefly: 1. Admins should not play cat and mouse with editors, nor play NFCC#8 and #1 against each other: that is, if an image or the subject in it is described and commented on by critics or reviewers, that description should not be used as an excuse to then claim, "See? It can be described in text!" 2. "Described in prose" is subjective and needs to be revisited for clarifying examples, because if "described in prose" were applied ad absurdum, no non-free images would remain on Wikipedia. 3. "Significantly increase understanding" is being exaggerated in practice, without regard to its range of meaning. And no, this doesn't mean I want a flood of images at TV articles, but it does mean that I want images of scenes which are critically discussed in multiple sources which significantly increase understanding of a topic and which cannot briefly be trivially summarized in prose and meet all other NFCC restrictions to remain.

@Kww - nobody is trying to ignore or subvert NFCC anything. I do however insist that the actual words used in NFCC be respected in practice, and I strongly feel they are not. "How we always do it" is wrong, where it goes directly against the text of NFCC as understood by a reasonable human.

I'm satisfied that of 272 nominated, three images survived DRV, though four, and possibly a very few more, should have. But in my opinion, if Schuminweb had stayed the course, engaged, and acted with calm and aplomb, and maybe more slowly, those (3? 5?) could have been retained in one step, instead of ever going to DRV.

If Schuminweb has retired (even temporarily), the admin rights should be turned off, then re-requested as usual.

Schuminweb off-wiki declaration

The discussion of "suspension of these proceedings pending return" seems unnecessarily tentative, since as of December 20, 2012, 2:05 AM, on his public website http://schuminweb.com, User:Schuminweb declared unambiguously that he has left (archive). Seems pretty definitive to me. Return seems unlikely, so desysopping is merited, and I thought, usual.

Statement by Kurtis

This situation is probably better handled through a motion to desysop ShuminWeb pending his response, as opposed to a full case. The question is not whether his deletions are in violation of policy, which is debatable in itself — it's the fact that he doesn't always communicate with people when his decisions are questioned. If he were more willing to explain his actions, then this ArbCom case wouldn't be happening.

On a related note, I think we really need to discuss WP:NFCC#8 as a community. Specifically, we need to try and figure out what would constitute an acceptable fair use rationale for an image within the context of whatever article it's being used on. We might even want to consider whether it would be a good idea to create a new community process or noticeboard for discussing fair-use images; I don't think IfD is sufficient as a venue for this. Perhaps something to the effect of what I'm proposing already exists? Kurtis (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Heim

It's really regrettable this kind of thing happens. I applaud the people who can deal with the abuse being heaped on them for enforcing NFCC, but those are a small number of people, and it seems we're losing more and more of them to burnout. Frankly, I think it's a disgrace to the Foundation that they establish this sitewide policy but then foist it on their volunteers to deal with its enforcement and the abuse that comes with it. I tried to enforce NFCC once and got crapped on. I'm never doing it again, not until the Foundation steps up and defends the policy itself, at the very least by defending those who enforce it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Spartaz

As a project we are dreadful at supporting users who are burning out and the usual reaction to users whose actions show evidence of burnout is to reach for the pitchforks and flaming torches. I'm sure I said this at an earler RFAR several years ago but it appears that we have learned nothing in the interim. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SteveBaker

I've had problems on one occasion with SchuminWeb - the matter relates to [11] - a situation where the resolution of a test image was under debate, SchuminWeb acted in a very high-handed manner - eventually going against a unanimous "strong keep" decision from a significant number of experienced editors who were well-versed in the subject matter and using his admin powers to reverse the strongest consensus I've seen in years - and in such a manner that no non-admin could fix up the resulting mess. This feels to me like admin-burnout. Sadly (because I'm sure SchuminWeb has done great work in the past), I think it's time for him to hang up his spurs, hand over his badge and retire gracefully. SteveBaker (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here isn't so much that SW removes images that shouldn't be removed - sure, that can happen, everyone is human. It's his failure to respond to serious debate about whether they should have been removed and the way that the underhanded ways that he sometimes employs to remove them (eg by delinking them from all of the places they appear - then claiming that they are orphaned images and speedy-deleting them before there can be informed discussion). This RfA is all about how he handles disputes about his actions. My personal issue with him wasn't about NFCC#8 at all. He demanded that the resolution of a fair-use image be reduced and then ignored the near-unanimous agreement that (a) that didn't need to be done, (b) that it would utterly destroy the article in which the image was used if it were to be resized and (c) he'd completely misunderstood the copyright status of the image. He simply wouldn't engage in discussion - deleting the image, refusing point blank to restore it and saying things like: "To restore that image requires an administrator to do since it involves deletion. No administrator with a healthy understanding of WP:NFCC would be willing to do so. In short: it is against WP:NFCC to have the larger image. So please do not ask me again about restoring the image, because it will not happen." - this being in right in the middle of a carefully thought out, reasoned discussion of the issues and in the face of unanimous consensus from highly experienced editors. As I pointed out at the time - as an admin, he is supposed to listen to the editors and help them towards a decision, then implement that decision. What he actually did (and has evidently done many times) is to form his own decision, act on it unilaterally, and then ignore all subsequent debate on the subject. SteveBaker (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Koavf

Huh I like the part where Lexein wrote "is this really the right place to attack editors not involved in this particular discussion?" and then two sentences later: "You, like Koavf, falsify the intent and language of other editors, and of policy: time to stop." Is this somehow about me? If so, please notify me (I only stumbled upon this by accident.) If someone wants to let me know that this conversation involves me, that would be nice. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Bwilkins

When the AN/ANI report was active I sent a gentle, friendly e-mail to SchuminWeb that really just recommend he show up at that report say "Hmm...I may have made an error, I'll make sure it doesn't happen again; sorry". The angry reply e-mail accusing me and other admins of circling the wagons showed me we had an admin on the verge of going postal. I unfortunately believe an emergency de-sysop is required, and a case is going to either be required now (although in absentia is not fair) or when he returns - DEFINITELY this de-sysop would be considered "under a cloud" if no case goes forward now (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by PAR

I was also involved, along with SteveBaker, in the Lenna controversy (see [12]) and I fully support SteveBaker's characterization of the abuse and his recommendations. PAR (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to "uninvolved Hammersoft": You use the phrase "Yet another case where people are coming out of the woodwork", a phrase used by SW as well to characterize anyone objecting to his abuse of Admin powers, as if anyone objecting to such abuse is some sort of destructive infestation of Wikipedia. This attitude is toxic, particularly in one with Admin powers. Let me take this opportunity to thank all NFCC workers who quietly improve the quality of Wikipedia by their unabusive hard work. This does not extend to those who see their Admin powers as an opportunity to experience the joy of vendetta, the joy of destroying, just because they can, the hard work of experienced editors who are also attempting to improve Wikipedia, and who are not bugs that need to be swatted. Let me ask Hammersoft if, after reading [13] and really UNDERSTANDING the objections of the various editors, he supports SW's behavior in this case. I totally support his statement that the behavior of both sides needs to be looked at. In this particular case, I think there is no downside to that for those who are objecting to this abuse of power. PAR (talk) 06:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Black Kite

Masem is right about the individual deletions; in most part they are generally correct; people forget that deletions at FFD default to delete, not keep, if the case for their free use can't be proved and they don't pass NFCC. Apart from that, I think Spartaz and Heimstern said it best. I spent a long time doing NFCC enforcement and I tell you, it isn't worth it for anyone. The amount of abuse you get it ridiculous, and the community, numerous ArbComs, and the Foundation have repeatedly refused to do anything about it. Indeed, I've even seen (former) Arbs involved in it. I wonder how long it will be before we have no admins willing to work FFD? Black Kite (talk) 12:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Previously involved and how-did-I-miss-the-Rfc KillerChihuahua

In October of 2011, I had my one and only encounter with SchuminWeb; in that encounter he was high-handed, dismissive, insulting, and generally obnoxious to the several admins and editors (myself as one) who tried to discuss an action of his, which was within the letter of the law, I suppose, but amazingly CLUEless. The discussion on his talk page was moved, then blanked, then redirected, but you can see it (albeit with the retired banner above, as that is templated across all his pages using an earlier template) here, scroll down to the first section, Changes to Template:Di-replaceable fair use in which Future Perfect at Sunrise, followed by myself and others, voiced concern that he had completely and utterly negated the speedy for fair use, by his changes in the verbiage of the template, hamstringing the speedy process for fair use, which would of course have grave concerns for all of Wikipedia. There was further discussion on ANI, in which IDHT was the response. The issue is the same as in the Rfc; high-handed admin action, and hostility to all who have concerns, which he then later buried. I have grave concerns about allowing this admin to "retire" and be able to come back to Wikipedia with the bits intact, without having addressed any concerns at all; this seems to have been a tactic used in the past and I have no reason to believe that he will come back with any change in attitude or approach; his past history would indicate the opposite will occur. Recommend removing admin bits under a cloud, forcing a new Rfa. We are not hard up enough for admins that we need accept this type of deafness to community concerns. One puppy's opinion. Killer Chihuahua 15:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Collect

I note the proposed motion, and would suggest a broader motion:

Where any administrator is the subject of an Arbitration case, and retires without participating in such a case, their rights as an administrator shall be removed for not less than six months, following which they may regain them either through a new RfA or through application to the committee.

Thus removing any "dramah" strictly relevant to the case at hand, and furnishing forewarning to administrators in the future that retirement does not forestall communisty displeasure. Collect (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by uninvolved Hammersoft

@Collect: Re-word to add that the admin's use of tools must be under scrutiny. Being involved in a case for nothing to do with use of tools should not be subject to losing tools for failure to participate.

@ArbCom 1: Yet another case where people are coming out of the woodwork to complain about an NFCC enforcer. NFCC is absolutely thankless work. The very few people who do it are frequently the target of personal attacks, reports to WP:AN/I, and more. Such people attract huge numbers of editors who are 'against' them. It becomes a personal issue, regardless of the policy issues. A person conducting NFCC work is, by default, wrong. In accepting this case, ArbCom is going to have to take a careful look at what actions were taken with respect to NFCC compliance. You shouldn't shy from cautioning people that their actions with respect to NFCC are wrong. Already in the statements above I am seeing linked material trying to hang SW for not adding a rationale, and instead tagging it for deletion. NFCC requires a rationale, and it also notes it is required of the people wishing to use such materials to provide a rationale. Yet, SW needs to lose his admin bit because he didn't write a rationale? This sort of attack on an NFCC worker must be called out for what it is. Further, two very experienced NFCC workers (Black Kite and Masem) have both said SW's actions with regards to NFCC were largely correct. Who is it that is in the wrong here?

@ArbCom 2: Yet another case going as far back in the past as possible to dredge up as much crap as possible that incriminates the target of an RFAR. Whether SW is in the right or wrong is pretty irrelevant. Enough crap, and you can bring someone down. SW, in his last note before (hours later) wiping everything and retiring, noted this problem [14]. ArbCom, your 'solution' has always been to take out the person being attacked, rather than looking at the attackers. With respect, I don't think ArbCom has the wherewithal to avoid doing anything other than taking out the subject rather than truly looking at the behavior of all parties involved. You complain of not having enough time, ignore the workshop and evidence pages (at least some of you do), and put out fires by removing what is on fire, rather than looking at the real problems. I hope for better. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrators: In your 4th motion, it states "The Arbitrators in office when the case resumes shall hear the matter." This is hardly necessary. Of course you would hear it. But, you are setting yourself up for a bureaucratic headache. Because of long term problems with your lack of training for your task, you have no established procedures for handling cases that cross from one sitting ArbCom to another. As a result, a newly elected arbitrator can sit a case that was already accepted and in progress before the new arbitrator(s) took office. This motion supersedes that common (if not delineated) behavior. Should this case resume, say, late next year you are going to have bureaucratic complaints about case management. This, for a sentence that is wholly unneeded for the motion. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by uninvolved Floq

While I have no opinion on the specific case here, I'm commenting because it reminded me of a recent similar case I was involved in. I think Courcelles' proposal should be the template you use in the future whenever an admin chooses not to, or is not able to, participate in an ArbCom case regarding their admin conduct, for any reason whatsoever. Temporary desysop (to keep those demanding action at bay, and to prevent gaming the system), option for editor to resume editing as a non-admin (without asking permission or admitting guilt), option for editor to reopen the case to regain sysop tools (if they change their mind, or if whatever was preventing them from participating goes away), conversion to permanent desysop in a year (for finality), no presumption of guilt (for fairness), option of a new RFA, no need for committee and involved parties to wait in limbo while editor chooses whether or not to respond ... all of that is spot on. I suggest this be made Motion #2, and I imagine you could wrap this up with little to no downside. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by mostly uninvolved TParis

I participated in the RFC/U: both leaving my own viewpoint and also endorsing someone else's. The issue of NFCC just really isn't relevant. What is relevant is WP:ADMINACCT of which this admin is in violation. He is convinced that the users concerned are only those who have a previous beef with him. I had never heard of him prior to this. An editor cannot remain an admin as long as they view themselves as above community scrutiny.

I think a full Arbitration case is not needed here. I think instead that a motion to desysop until the user returns and is prepared to participate in some forum of dispute resolution in good faith is all that is needed. The tools can be promptly, prior to DR, but on the condition of participation. The evasive retirements cannot be allowed. Arbcom is not needed yet for DR, but the desysop requires an Arbcom motion.--v/r - T P 16:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MBisanz

Just a note re: Motion #3: Courcelles, I do not read that as giving the crats authority to desysop him if he makes an admin action. It says if he makes an admin action it will be grounds for desysopping. Arbcom is the one who would determine if such a violation warrants desysopping; not the crats. MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Would a clerk please ensure that SchuminWeb is notified of this Request for Arbitration via "email this user" in addition to the notice that has already been placed on his talk page? Thanks. Risker (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Email sent. Lord Roem (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (8/0/0/4)

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

Comment: I would really like to hear from SchuminWeb but this edit over two weeks ago, is his last edit. If he is burnt out, it would be good if he could communicate to the committee that he's taking some time out. Otherwise, awaiting further statements, Roger Davies ^talk 17:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mangoe. Don't worry; we're not just going to let this float away on the ether but we don't normally desysop immediately and automatically under such circumstances. Roger Davies ^talk 18:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting statements, but inclined to accept, the admin's response to the RFC/U is concerning, so I fully understand why we are here. Courcelles 18:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Accept and, if SchuminWeb doesn't return to editing, simply temporary desysop and hold the case in limbo, but open so this issue doesn't get lost --perhaps with a clause that makes the temp desysop permanent if he hasn't returned within, say, 180 days. If he returns soon, though, such measures will be unnecessary, and the case can proceed as normal. Courcelles 01:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked that a clerk ensure SchuminWeb is notified of this RFAR via email as well as the notice that has been placed on his talk page. I would hope that he responds within a few days. If not, I think the Committee may consider a temporary desysop until such time as SchuminWeb returns to address the issues, as has been done in other situations. I sincerely hope it does not come to that. Risker (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Accept to look at SchuminWeb's communication and action as an administrator, and likely to look at the larger issue of NFCC#8, which seems to be informing his decisions. Risker (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Schumin were still editing, I'd be voting to accept this case now. As it is, it appears as though his last edit was several days before the RFC was filed, so it's entirely possible that he is unaware of the RFC, and it's almost certain he is unaware of this case request. If he's not checking email, that notification may also fall on deaf ears. Regardless, the RFC does appear to document a number of long-lasting concerns that do merit further investigation. I'll withhold voting on acceptance until the end of the week to give Schumin time to respond, but I agree with Risker - if his inactivity does continue, my intention will be to vote to accept the case and support a temporary injunction desysopping Schumin and suspending the case until he should return to the project. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Accept, and I likely will propose a temporary injunction of some sort either removing his admin rights entirely, or barring him from making use of them, until he participates in the case. If he does indeed retire, then regrettable that we've lost an editor but the issue at hand is resolved. If he does return, then the issue of his admin rights can be resolved then. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that SW will become aware of this Arb request sooner or later, but he also hasn't been editing since the RfC. While we have proceeded with cases when it was perceived the absence was deliberate to avoid scrutiny or they had stalled proceedings as long as possible, I don't think we've reached that stage here. There's no ongoing disruption by virtue of Web not actually editing, so I'm not sure we should be accepting. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to accept and hold until Schumin returns, per Elen. I think that NFCC is another matter that can't be addressed here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SchuminWeb is now aware, so we can reasonably wait a short while for some kind of response. Kww makes an interesting point though. If he is right, this is the third admin I have seen implode over NFCC issues, particularly WP:NFCC#8. This criterion requires a massive judgement call, cannot be dealt with as a factual matter, and has at its heart a philosophical view about what Wikipedia is. The relevant Foundation policy does not have anything in it that resembles clause 8. Perhaps it's time to hold another discussion about NFCC. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Given SchuminWeb's latest response to Hahc21, I would accept the case, based on the RfC, and suspend it. That gives SchuminWeb the opportunity to take a break from editing and adminning and, as NYB says, decide how he feels about things. If he decides to return having had a break, we can look at the matter more thoroughly at that point. If there is a desire in the community to take more of a look at NFCC generally, that can go ahead unconnected to this case. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I would not support a motion to remove sysop as an emergency measure, as I see no grounds for doing so while SchuminWeb is not editing and has stated publically that he intends to leave the project. I think if he returned to editing without addressing this matter, that would be grounds for an emergency desysop. If he has not returned within six months, then that would be grounds for removing the tools as a security measure. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hold for now and await a statement from SchuminWeb, per my colleagues' comments above. It appears there are ample grounds presented for an arbitration case. Given that SchuminWeb has now confirmed (via Twitter) that he is aware of the request for arbitration, we can afford to wait a few days to see whether he responds on-wiki. We don't need to take any action immediately, because he isn't using administrator tools right now and there's no reason to believe he's about to start again soon. If, as appears, SchuminWeb has had enough of administrator duties on Wikipedia, the best course might be for him to resign as an administrator. If he does wish to continue as an administrator, he needs to respond to the concerns that have been raised, but I'm willing to give him a reasonable amount of time to do it if he asks. SchumanWeb should also bear in mind that there is a lot more to editing Wikipedia than administrating, and especially administrating in one notoriously contentious area, and perhaps stepping away from adminship or at least from NFCC work would allow him to recapture the more pleasant aspects of being an editor that presumably drew all of us here to begin with. In other words, he has choices here other than "arbitrate" and "retire," and I hope he will think about that. I would also like to thank many of the editors who have participated in the RfC and in this discussion, for keeping the tone much more temperate than we sometimes have seen in other cases. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The community are dealing with this appropriately; however, there is an incomplete RfC on hold because SchuminWeb is absent. An ArbCom case should also be put on hold as he would not be able to appropriately explain his actions, therefore I don't feel opening a case would be a suitable option. The community appear to be requesting a temporary desysop until SchuminWeb returns, when the RfC can be finished. I would therefore decline a case, but accept a motion for a temporary desyopping, which would remain in place until the conclusion of the RfC. If, at the end of the RfC the community feel they still have confidence in SchuminWeb, the temporary desyopping is reversed; if the community feel they do not have confidence in SchuminWeb we hold a motion to make it a formal desysopping. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept for review of tool use, which is one of our core functions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, and look toward suspending SchuminWeb's access to administrative tools until the case. This is non-prejudicial to the handling of the case, but instead its a way to make sure that no furtherpossibly disputed actions can take place until they come back to handle the case. If they are indeed retiring, we could make it permanent, but we'll see how events go. SirFozzie (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, with a view to then 1) indefinitely suspending the case (until the respondent returns to Wikipedia), and 2) desysopping SW until he answers the community's concerns and the arbitration case against him. I echo Roger's suggestion to SchuminWeb that he contact the committee if he is reading this page but is merely too burned-out to respond to this request. I would never have us hear this case in absentia (and, if I could, I would make this vote conditional upon our not doing so). AGK [•] 22:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My vote to accept remains in place, no matter if a motion passes. AGK [•] 21:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion regarding SchuminWeb

Since SchuminWeb has retired after notification that a case was in process; since that case had been set to open based on arbitrator votes and elapsed time since such votes had been made; and that accepting a case and suspending it indefinitely over the end of the year creates a situation where the arbitrators hearing the resumed case will differ substantially from the arbitrators voting to accept the case, SchuminWeb is desysop'ed and may only regain the tools via a new Request for Adminship.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support As proposer. "Retiring" in the face of criticism is unbecoming in any editor, but is furthermore incompatible with our expectations of administrators, per WP:ADMINACCT. Jclemens (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Second choice, prefer motion 2 (subject to my caveat there about the length of time permitted). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Workable, could be fine tuned better though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Third preference. PhilKnight (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I cannot support in this form and in the absence of a statement from the admin. I'll try to work up instead something based on the Aitias motions. Roger Davies ^talk 12:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've put together the following, which derives from the Aitias case.
"Absent an emergency, the committee is reluctant to remove administrative tools without first providing the administrator with an opportunity to respond. Accordingly, this case is suspended until after 5th January 2013. If, between the passing of this motion and 5th January 2013:
SchuminWeb resigns his administrator tools, such resignation will be irrevocable, and the case will be closed without further action; any return of his tools may only take place following a successful RfA.
SchuminWeb fails to communicate with the committee, his administrative tools will be temporarily withdrawn on 6th January 2013, pending a hearing of this case upon his return to editing. If the committee hears nothing by 20th January 2013, the temporary removal of the tools will be become permanent and may only be restored following a successful RfA.
SchuminWeb notifies the committee that he wishes to participate in a case, the case will open SchuminWeb's earliest convenience and in any event no later than 20th January 2013.
In the meantime, SchuminWeb is prohibited indefinitely from making any administrative action of whatever nature. In the unlikely event that this prohibition is ignored, SchuminWeb's administrative tools may be summarily removed by motion of any three arbitrators pending the hearing of a full case."
Any thoughts? Roger Davies ^talk 19:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Desysopping without the case and without a pressing emergency feels too much like judgement before a hearing. If Schumin is not editing, there's no threat of tool misuse. I will post an alternate motion tonight; while I think the issue of new vs. old admins is a difficult one to foresee, I think we can still handle it a bit more elegantly. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with David; plus, if he should return at any point, he needs the opportunity to present his defense, as it were. This motion presumes guilt. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I'd rather pass: "The request for arbitration filed on 17 December 2012 concerning SchuminWeb is accepted. As he is not actively editing, the case will be held pending his return to active editing. SchuminWeb's admin tools are removed until he returns to editing and agrees to participate in this case. Once he indicates he is willing to proceed, his admin tools will be restored; though he will be under a temporary injunction not to delete any page from the File Namespace. This injunction will expire when the case closes. The Arbitrators in office when the case resumes shall hear the matter Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within one year of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the desysop will be considered permanent, and he will only be able to gain the tools again through a fresh Request for Adminship." This would solve the immediate problem, ensure there would be no more, and yet neither presupose guilt or move the goalposts if/when the admin decides to face the case. I think this motion as proposed does improperly assume guilt, when what we have is proof there are things to be concerned about, and the case should look into whether the admin tools should be removed. Yet, the hard stop date does mot prolong this ad infinitum. Courcelles 18:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer the later motions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer motion 4. AGK [•] 21:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Arbitrator comments

It seems to me that the appropriate next step is for someone to reach out privately to SchuminWeb and ask if whether, in light of his announced retirement, he is prepared to resign his adminship. I believe we should allow a few days for this to happen before formally voting on motions, as there's no urgency given that he is not editing (let alone dministrating), although I agree that at some point some action would be required. I don't see the end-of-year changeover in arbitrators as a relevant factor; this is not a sprawling, long-term case that it would be unfair to expect new arbitrators to enter in the middle of. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the opposes are a good example of why people complain about ArbCom's soft-on-administrator-abuse stance. Roger's initial oppose gives any admin a "get out of de-sysop'ing free" card for the simple price of refusing to make a statement. Hersfold's implies that SchuminWeb has not had the opportunity to provide an explanation of his actions: he has; he's chosen to not do so, inasmuch as he spent several minutes redirecting talk page archives and such when he could have been typing even the most cursory of response. Furthermore, yes, the simple and straightforward motion does presume guilt: not guilt of any case-related conduct he's been accused of, but the straightforward and essentially incontrovertable "guilt" of failing to make any effort to respond. That failure is already covered in policy at WP:ADMINACCT and in my opinion provides a sufficient base for returning the decision about SchuminWeb's future admin status to the community, via the RfA mechanism. The oppose votes and alternative motions tacitly reward administrator failure to respond to legitimate complaints, in a manner not necessitated by policy. I see this as yet another missed opportunity to discourage this sort of avoidant behavior through natural, policy-based consequences for consistently failing to respond. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion regarding SchuminWeb (2)

The accepted case will be suspended pending SchuminWeb's return to editing. Schumin is instructed not to use his administrator tools to close deletion discussions until the closure of the case; doing so, or failure to engage with the case upon return, will be grounds for removal of his administrator userrights. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within one year of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the account will be desysopped; returning the tools will require a new request for adminship.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

As proposer--this addresses the issues brought by the filing parties regarding improper deletions, and provides an incentive to engage with the case. Per Courcelles' idea in the previous motion, it comes with a built-in expiration date (we shouldn't expect future arbs to have to deal with stale messes.) Copyedits are welcome. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can support this, but would also prefer that the time frame be reduced to somewhere from three-six months. Roger's suggestions sound good as well. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC) (Second choice) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find this sufficient. The request and subsequent comments contain information that warrants a case; however, I do not believe that the threshold has been reached that would require immediate desysop. The case will proceed should SchuminWeb return to editing at any time in the next year. Minor copy edit, which I do not think changes the meaning of the motion. Risker (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Only choice that I support. Risker (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~second~~ third choice, for the reasons I listed in my comments above, but anything is better than nothing passing. Jclemens (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'd prefer "not to use his adminsitrator tools in any way." But this gets a weak support. SirFozzie (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)~~ Switching to oppose in favor of better option. SirFozzie (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second preference. PhilKnight (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weakly, but prefer three months. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose in favor of better option below. SirFozzie (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In favor of motion 3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the tools should be removed. Who is going to take the responsibility of watching for use? Courcelles 20:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One year is too long. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we "instructing" SchuminWeb not to use his tools? If we wish him not to use his sysop permissions, then we should revoke them. This sort of "gentlemen's agreement" is rather silly, and I would prefer that anything we do with permission removals be watertight. AGK [•] 21:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Arbitrator comments

May I suggest two copy-edits? They are: (i) deleting "to close deletion discussions" and inserting "for any purpose" in its place; and (ii) replacing "Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within one year of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the account will be desysopped; returning the tools will require a new request for adminship." with "Should SchuminWeb resign his administrative tools, the case will be closed and no further action taken. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within one year of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the account will be desysopped. In either event, restoration of the tools will require a new request for adminship." I still think a year is an eternity but can probably live with it. Roger Davies ^talk 14:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I included the specific mention just because I haven't seen indications that Schumin had blocked his opposition or abused rollback, etc; the issue is with his nature towards opens/closes of FFD/deletion discussions. I'd be interested in input from other arbs, however. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept this approach in principle, but I think that a year is too long. We must be respectful of the (perhaps temporary, perhaps not) disaffection of the administrator whose conduct has been challenged, but we must also be fair to others who would participate in the case if it proceeds. To ask those parties to revisit their issues with SchuminWeb in (hypothetically) a month or two might be reasonable to all; to ask that they do it a year from now, perhaps less so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would six months be a decent compromise? I definitely see your point on being fair to all parties, and that's what the motion is an attempt at. The time period is an absolute outside limit, but I don't know if Schumin is more or less likely to come back in X months after he's spent Y months away. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion regarding SchuminWeb (3)

The accepted case is hereby suspended pending SchuminWeb's return to editing. SchuminWeb is instructed not to use his administrator tools in any way until the closure of the case; doing so will be grounds for removal of his administrator userrights. Should SchuminWeb decide to resign his administrative tools, the case will be closed and no further action taken. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within three months of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the account will be desysopped. If the tools are resigned or removed in either of the circumstances described above, restoration of the tools to SchuminWeb will require a new request for adminship.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

A further alternative introducing a shorter (three-month) period than that proposed above. It also extends the prohibition on tool use to all areas; this really is the best interests both of the community and SchuminWeb; any tool use is bound to become a major source of unpleasant drama. Other than that, a few copy edits for (hopefully) clarity. Roger Davies ^talk 07:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First preference. PhilKnight (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~First~~ Second preference. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second preference. Still rewards bad behavior, but not as much as doing nothing would. Jclemens (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First choice. Minor copyedit (inserted "either of"). Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this covers things quite well. The instruction not to use the tools on penalty of forced removal is in effect the same as a desysopping. The situation that concerns Courcelles appears to also arise in Motion 4, that we have an injunction that will need to be enforced. ~~Equal first choice with Motion 4, though leaning toward~~ first choice, as the option for SchuminWeb to resign is useful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Equal preference to motion above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First choice. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Sorry, but I just can't support anything that leaves the tools in place in this circumstance. Who is going to enforce the restriction? Are we giving the crats authority to do so? Are we going to have to make another motion if this one is violated? I despise doing it, but I'm going to be adding a fourth motion. Courcelles 22:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we "instructing" SchuminWeb not to use his tools? If we wish him not to use his sysop permissions, then we should revoke them. This sort of "gentlemen's agreement" is rather silly, and I would prefer that anything we do with permission removals be watertight. AGK [•] 21:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Arbitrator comments

Motion regarding SchuminWeb (4)

The request for arbitration filed on 17 December 2012 concerning SchuminWeb is accepted. As he is not actively editing, the case will be held pending his return to active editing. SchuminWeb's admin tools are removed until he returns to editing and agrees to participate in this case. Once he indicates he is willing to proceed, his admin tools will be restored; though he will be under a temporary injunction not to delete any page from the File Namespace. This injunction will expire when the case closes. The Arbitrators in office when the case resumes shall hear the matter. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within six months of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the desysop will be considered permanent, and he will only be able to gain the tools again through a fresh Request for Adminship. If at any time before six months from this motion passing SchuminWeb submits and passes a new RFA, this matter shall be considered dismissed without further action.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

Puts the ball in his court over a few options on how to proceed, does not require active monitoring for compliance, nor a fresh motion to do so, and permits a bypass of this process for an RFA should he so desire it. Courcelles 22:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Equal second choice preference with the third motion, per the same rationale: the simplest solution is to just remove the tools outright. Jclemens (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First choice Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Equal first choice. PhilKnight (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~First~~[Second] choice. I think this is closer to what the community were looking for. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First and only choice. SchuminWeb's conduct as an administrator is so concerning that we have accepted the arbitration request; it is quite unthinkable to decide it is appropriate that, upon our realising he will not respond to the arbitration case, we should leave his administrator tools alone. Without prejudging the outcome of the arbitration, nor wishing to treat SchuminWeb unkindly, I merely consider it sensible that we desysop this administrator until he is ready to engage in the arbitration process. AGK [•] 21:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

For same rationale as mentioned above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm frankly afraid that the distinction among all these motions may be moot, as SchuminWeb's comments elsewhere do not suggest he will be returning to Wikipedia, and certainly not that he'll be looking to take on the burdens of administration again. That being said, I understand the point that Jclemens and Courcelles are making that for an administrator repeatedly to walk away from the project when his or her actions are being criticized is not useful. Nonetheless, I would prefer to err on the side of allowing an administrator in this position some more time to be heard from before we remove the tools for good. (I think this is what the community was trying to say to us in response to our motion in the EncycloPetey case, as well.) Whether to suspend adminship pending SchuminWeb's return, or to leave it in place but direct him not to use the tools or not to use them controversially, is a fine point. On balance, I don't see a likelihood that he's going to come back and immediately start deleting things, knowing the drama that this would cause. This is the case of a dedicated long-time administrator who may have gotten carried away and burnt out, but AGF still applies; we aren't talking about Archtransit here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per my oppose to motion 1, although this is worded significantly better. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see the need to desysop at this point. The case presented is sufficient to accept and examine the behaviour, but I do not believe it is sufficient to desysop without an actual case. Risker (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Arbitrator comments

Jerusalem

Initiated by tariqabjotu at 19:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
Alertboatbanking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BritishWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dailycare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hertz1888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Pluto2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tritomex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
ZScarpia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Alertboatbanking: 01:44, December 17
BritishWatcher: 20:14, December 16
Cptnono: 20:15, December 16
Dailycare: 20:16, December 16
Hertz1888: 20:16, December 16
Nableezy: 20:17, December 16
Nishidani: 20:17, December 16
No More Mr Nice Guy: 20:18, December 16
Pluto2012: 20:18, December 16
Sean.hoyland: 20:19, December 16
Tritomex: 20:19, December 16
ZScarpia: 20:19, December 16

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Talk:Jerusalem/capital: Numerous threads (taken from Talk:Jerusalem and Talk:Israel) since October 2003
Talk:Jerusalem/capital/2010#On the Table: Source of current phrasing in Israel lead, January-February 2010

Talk:Jerusalem/capital/2010#Compromise on the first sentence: Source of current phrasing in Jerusalem lead, October 2010
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Jerusalem as the capital of Israel: May-July 2008
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel (deleted): Rejected January 2010
Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 17, Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 18, Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 19, and Talk:Jerusalem: Latest threads on this issue, mostly since August 2012
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jerusalem: Rejected December 2012

Statement by Tariqabjotu

Withdrawing. -- tariqabjotu 19:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Jerusalem article has a problem.

For nine years, discussions have raged on the talk page regarding the point in the lead that the city is the capital of Israel and, to a lesser extent, that it's the capital of the State of Palestine. Around April 2007, just before the article achieved FA status (yes, I know, unbelievable), it was decided that the point would be settled by inserting a footnote explaining the controversy. In October 2010, a (further?) compromise was struck that called for noting immediately after the contested point that Jerusalem's status as capital is not widely recognized. While that seemed to maintain calm for the better part of both 2011 and 2012, over the past few months, the issue has been rekindled with a fire and desperation like never before. While there have been more than ninety threads on this matter, at least four RfCs, and at least two attempts at mediation (both rejected, including one rejected just this month), we have been left with zero ends in sight.

The impetus for this mediation is less a direct accusation of misconduct by some of my adversaries, but more a request to consider the accusations made by them. Over the past few weeks, there have been an increasing number of accusations from them that some people are "blocking" any sort of resolution (e.g. [15], [16], [17], [18]). There have been claims that those supporting the current wording are just pushing the Israeli POV (e.g. [19], [20], [21]). These accusations have been countered by allegations that some are pushing the Palestinian POV, reminding them the current formulation is the result of the October 2010 discussion (in which some of the current proponents of change were actually participants).

Unsurprisingly, this has fostered an environment in which the improbable has been rendered impossible. Several people from both sides (myself included) have said that even attempting to discuss this matter with one or more adversaries is a waste of time. A few editors have stated that there are no policy-based arguments for maintaining the current wording, with one saying he has "consensus by default" because of that. In recent days, it seems like there has been focus on a particular wording that mentions, but distinguishes between, Israeli and Palestinian claims, but some are still arguing that's not far enough. Throughout, there have been threats of bringing people to WP:AE or WP:RfC/U or ArbCom for the alleged "blocking" and accusations of ownership.

So I'm calling the bluff, requesting that these accusations (and any other issues) be considered. Unaddressed, any sort of resolution is impossible, as it is impossible to discuss with people who believe your every word is in bad faith and intended to push a point of view. Further, I personally -- and I'm sure I'm not alone in this -- am worried that if a compromise is struck again, there is no guarantee, without a third-party observer, that the editors involved in this discussion will drop it for good. I'm not confident an arbitration case will end this matter either, and I'm sure this time of the year and the ArbCom calendar is not ideal, but we need to try and I urge the Arbitration Committee to consider this case. -- tariqabjotu 20:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I didn't know where precisely to stop with naming parties. I tried to only list people that were recently active in this dispute so as not to unnecessarily drag people in, but people who would like to be apart of this could presumably add themselves. -- tariqabjotu 20:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Hersfold's questions:

It was intentional to not make any accusations; I (and others who support the current wording) am more the target of accusations than one making them. However, some of their statements, in the course of making their accusations, suggest a battleground stance, with labels such as "hasbarists", "racist", and "hatikvah brigade" (to say nothing of the standard "Israeli POV-pushers") have been thrown around recently. A second notable issue is that Dailycare is now arguing against the current wording, saying that cannot have consensus because it's not supported by policy-based reasons -- despite agreeing to it two years ago. There are probably several relevant policies that come into this dispute (like WP:UNDUE, which can be cited from a few angles), but these are less conduct issues and more content issues.
I don't edit in other parts of this conflict, and only recently (in October) returned to this article after a two-year hiatus. So, I don't know.
Perhaps. Someone even suggested to meet that that might be a good/better course of action. But, I'm not convinced an admin would have the courage to act on accusations that aren't very concrete.
I'm not sure what you mean by "in which members of the entire community participated". Are you suggesting some sort of RfC that actively attracts members from outside the Israeli-Palestinian topic area? Or is this nothing beyond a normal RfC? If you were thinking of the latter, neither an August 2009 RfC nor a January 2010 RfC, both of which suggested no change (n.b. those were even before the October 2010 change), put this matter to rest.
Some pointers that would clear the air. Do the user conduct issues have weight? Is there "blocking"? Are some people breaking a compromise? What does a compromise mean? I understand ArbCom doesn't rule on content, but I would hope that you could rule on the framework that would allow this dispute to be resolved. Maybe you'll even come up with something innovative. -- tariqabjotu 03:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the suggestion by one of the ArbCom members, I'm perfectly happy with a binding mediation (or RfC), but as you see, voluntary mediation didn't work and I don't think mediation could be made involuntary otherwise. -- tariqabjotu 13:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more revision to my answer to Question 1 comes by looking at the recent edit history. A formulation that was never discussed was just put into the article (and reverted back in after it was reverted out). Other than that, I can't imagine needing to elaborate further; the tone and contents of some of the statements here speak for themselves... as I expected and intended. -- tariqabjotu 18:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again regarding the binding RfC: If you all are going to leave this with suggesting a binding RfC, can one of you at least provide the framework for it? Perhaps a small group of administrators could be charged with unanimously agreeing on its conclusion and paying attention to it to some extent? Perhaps you could dictate where and how the RfC is advertised (if at all) to gain a broad section of the community? Binding RfCs don't generally come organically (especially as very little is truly "binding" around here) and, as you've seen, seemingly permanent resolutions have not really held. -- tariqabjotu 04:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't give a shit anymore. When whatever process or medium is set up to resolve this issue once and for all, feel free to ping me and I will provide my input as appropriate. But, until then, I have no interest in the proceedings here and on the talk page. No one is going to change his or her mind. Some people are going to hold fast to their positions that their opponents are guilty of blocking or filibustering or violating some policy. Some people are going to continually misstate their opponents' positions. Some people are going to continue to respond to straw-man arguments, and insist that the straw-man arguments be defended. I did not sign up for Wikipedia to be subjected to such abuse and stress, and it is a colossal waste of time, especially at this time of year, to be dodging that while discussing some text that has no importance or consequences on Wikipedia, let alone in the real world, with people who care so much more about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And without any third-party observation or intervention, this will continue.

MedCom rejected this issue. ArbCom has rejected it. Some aren't even sure this needs some direction. I'm sorry, but if that's the way the Wikipedia community feels about this, if a hundred threads over nine years, with the current talk page containing more than 500KB of heated text from at least a dozen editors, only necessitate rejection, the weakest of imperatives, and the suggestion from an elected member of the most powerful committee on Wikipedia that this matter might have been brought to its attention "earlier than necessary", well, forgive me for ever giving a shit. -- tariqabjotu 19:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dailycare

I support this request for arbitration. We've been to formal mediation twice (or, more exactly, twice the formal mediation didn't go ahead due to incomplete assent). Overall editors have been discussing the issue for years with RFCs and threads. Progress in content has been glacial to put it gently, there may be significant WP:Stonewalling behaviour involved, and frustration has manifested as uncivility in the long discussions. This does, of course, relate to a significant real-life controversy that arouses strong passions so this shouldn't be surprising. --Dailycare (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples of behavioral problems: 1, 2, 3 and 1, 2, 3. The latter edits were made by an editor who is an administrator of the project, unless I'm mistaken. (Further examples are easy to find).

2) The same issue is present in the Israel article with regard to the same statement.

3) I don't know. AE may be an option, although here we have several involved editors.

4) An RFC would fail if the same group of editors can "just say no" to prevent an outcome as are saying no currently to prevent an outcome. If this possibility is somehow controlled, an RFC might work.

5) An ideal outcome could be that a clearer vision is communicated with regard to civility and stonewalling. --Dailycare (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One way to make any binding RFC more useful could be to limit the number of responses to three per editor. Each editor could then lay out his case in these three edits, and the closing admins could then assess the relative merits of the arguments to assess whether the proposal on the table has consensus, giving each argument weight according to its merits, rather than counting votes (WP:RFC says this). In this sense if editors just show up to say no, they couldn't force a "no consensus" result. The edits could even be done in rounds, so that each editor can contribute one comment in "round one", which is then followed by "round two" and "round three". This may in fact sound a bit like mediation. --Dailycare (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alertboatbanking

As I stated in my previous comments I favor no particular final solution because it will never happen. The unreliability and poor quality of articles on the Arab-israeli conflict will be a permanent feature of wikipedia for decades to come. As long as prominent notices alert the reader to the manipulations of the more active/effective side (currently Israeli nationalists) little more can be done.

Ravpapa nicely states it as "[failure means] there are some topics about which we cannot write objectively" This I think is absolutely correct and I believe the failure is inevitable.

The bad acting partisans are intelligent calculating and don't give a hoot about wikipedia and are acting based on nationalistic motivations. So the realistic energy-optimal strategy towards them is not confrontation or arbitration but containment. Anyone who thinks the interests of their precious nation is more important than wikipedia should be barred from editing it. In lieu of that poor quality tagged dispute ridden articles will have to do.Alertboatbanking (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

I dont honestly see what an ArbCom case would do to resolve this issue. There hasnt been any edit-warring, or at least nothing on the scale as to require a case to resolve, and while the talk page may be a bit uncomfortable it hasnt reached a point that the standard discretionary sanctions couldnt deal with. If this were to be accepted as a case, the outcome would likely follow the pattern of you banning anybody who knows anything about the dispute, resulting in a new group of partisans arguing on an even lower level. The Wikipedia way, tried and true. nableezy - 05:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq, that last comment is patently untrue. The formulation was discussed, the exact sentences and sequences were brought to the talk page yesterday, however you refused to answer any questions, repeatedly. Instead you only said that it would be reverted without once providing a cause. You cannot refuse to discuss the content and then complain that it was never discussed. What is this, kindergarten? No I wont play soccer. No I wont play basketball. I wont talk about what game to play. Teacher! They're playing football without me!!!! nableezy - 19:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Binding mediation would be a good idea. I dont think an RFC would be a good idea for this, its too involved an issue for *Support. nableezy - 07:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please listen to Steven. And would a "no consensus" RFC be binding for three years as well? Binding mediation would be an exponentially better method to resolve this dispute. RFCs in this topic area rarely get meaningful uninvolved comments. nableezy - 19:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know if any of the arbs are reading this or not, or anything else, but in the hopes that you are could I ask that you play this out and answer a few questions? What brief, neutral statement could possibly exist that would summarize this dispute? What do you think the chances of an RFC getting significant uninvolved input in this topic area? What do you think the chances are that this ends in anything other than a "no consensus" result? Is a "no consensus" result binding for 3 years? If so, does that mean that the current wording is enshrined for 3 years? If not, where would we be other than right back here? How would the RFC question be formulated? Why not binding mediation instead of a binding RFC? nableezy - 21:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pluto2012

I wrote on the Talk page that I would ask the ArbCom to study the issue if we could not find a way to move forward on the article. Tariqjabotku did it before.

The referees asked the right questions :

Sort of dispute is exactly where WP:YESPOV, applied in good faith by editors striving to reach a neutral statement describing a contested reality, is supposed to prevail. (Jclemens)
- That's my mind and indeed the situation is contested except that I personnaly cannot believe any more in the good faith of some other editors. If we would apply the rules of NPoV quietly (ie just referring to what reliable sources state) that would be easy to solve.
"why mediation has so far failed to achieve a lasting solution to this dispute ?" (AGK) :
- I arrived lately in the discussion but per my understanding, mediators refused to take the mediation in charge.
"What specific allegations of misconduct are you making?"
- There are personnal attacks but that is not a problem
- A side is WP:GAMING the system in refusing any evolution of a pov-ed sentence based on the fact it has been in the article for months. I assume the other think that we are biaised (?).
"Is this misconduct impacting other areas of contention within this topic area?"
- There are problems on all articles relatived to the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
"#Is there some reason why existing discretionary sanctions will not suffice to resolve this dispute?"
- I don't think sanctionning anybody could solve anything. WP:GAMING or WP:WIKILAWYERING cannot be solved by any "discretionary sanction".
Would an RFC on the lead section, in which members from the entire community participated, work to bring a compromise to the central issue of content?
- I think that a part of the problem is that too many people intervene. No discussion can evolve because it goes in all directions and people do not answer to others'arguments and everything turns around.
"If this case is accepted, what would you see as an ideal outcome of the case?"
- I would propose the following to the ArbCom. Don't analyse the past but let's see the good will of contributors to solve this "under the eyes of the ArbComs". Let's create a page of discussion where a few contributors will intervene and let's see how it moves forward. If we don't succeed in solving the issue, the Arbcom will be able to say who is working in the global spirit of our wikipedia rules and who does not and it will be able to take a decision based on concrete facts. Doing so, we move forward, we don't need to dig the history of the articles and the discussions to prove this one or that one is the bad guy. We could even find a solution by ourselves because everybody knows that the Arbcom will just look at us. That is also a good opportunity to synthetize all arguments and refresh the discussions. And all in all, it is the more constructive.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Request to the arbitrators : 2 At least 3 arbitrators suggest a '(binding) RfC' closed by a designed independant editor/admin. This was tried in the past and suggested that 3 admins close such RfC. But the contributors could never be found. Given they are not involved and it seems there is a a least consensus to refer to ArbCom, could the arbitrators suggest/chose 3 editors that would close the case ? I am confident that this would help.
    Anyway, I still think a 'binding mediation' eg by the same 3 could be much more efficient. If this mediation could be done on a dedicated page to which we could refer in case of failure, that would even be better. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question to the arbitrators : I may be right or I may be wrong in considering that contributors refuse to move forward constructively and WP:GAME the system. We can comply to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF strictly but then nothing will evolve and this talk page will remain a WP:BATTLEFIELD (or a multi-players on-line game, whichever is the less childish). According to your point of view, how can we manage this contracdiction ? What community's principles give an answer to such a situation ? Pluto2012 (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I agree with much of what Pluto2012 has said. The content issue is embarrassingly simple to resolve in principal because it is about correcting a basic error. Many sources have already solved it in ways that comply with our policies. All that is required is for editors to follow the sources and comply with our policies and guidelines. It should be easy but it has not been possible, largely it seems because the information in the sources gets convolved with editor's personal opinions on the real world issues. If the only thing that came out of this was that it stopped editors from writing their personal opinions/personal analyses based on what they think they know about the real world issue without "utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions" (to quote the discretionary sanctions) or what they think about other editors, it would be a huge leap forward. It's difficult to convey how low the signal to noise ratio is on that discussion page or how rarely people actually survey and look at how sources handle the contested status of Jerusalem. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators asked for an example of behavioral issues. Here is one that just happened. It's typical, so I'm by no means singling out this particular editor.

"Oppose this wording. "claims" again this goes back to the suggestions we add proclaimed capital. If we are going to pretend that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel.." etc. see diff. Why is it problematic ? It ignores countless sources that present Israel's claim that Jerusalem (complete and united) is their capital as a claim, rather than presenting it as a statement of fact. The statement is predicated on the editor's personal view that it is a fact that "Jerusalem is israel's dejure and defacto capital", and it is that belief, not the data in the sources, that is used to make content decisions. Also, no one wants "to pretend that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel". The issue is, as always, presenting a disputed claim as a unattributed statement of fact using Wikipedia's narrative voice. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you NMMNG, that is another example of a behavioral issue, misrepresentation, NMMNG saying that I am "pretending the people they disagree with do not base their views on reliable sources, which is patently false and obviously dismissive." Of course I know what the sources say because I'm one of the people there who actually does what they are supposed to do, surveys them and cites them in discussions. Of course I know that there are sources that say Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Of course NMMNG knows that I know this because I have explicitly acknowledged it on several occasions and I have told him many times that there is diversity in the sources and that we have to deal with the mess. And NMMNG should know by now that I never pretend about anything. There is no possible justification for this kind of misrepresentation, no one should have to deal with it. It needs to stop. Is the example I gave above dismissive of the views expressed by the editor in the diff ? I hope so. I'm not interested in what editors think is true, I'm only interested in what the sources say and how we can deal with that data. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments on mediation - According to Wikipedia:DR#Last_resort:_Mediation, binding mediation is about "reaching an agreement that can be acceptable to everyone". I don't think anyone should be concerned whether I, as a party to the mediation, find a solution acceptable. The objective should be to reach an agreement that maximizes compliance with policies and guidelines whether I or anyone else likes it or not. It should be possible to demonstrate that it is a near-optimal solution based on evidence in the sources, not the happiness of the participants. Having watched this issue for years, it seems to me that it is not possible for some editors to agree to a solution that does not include the unattributed statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". No amount of evidence in the form of sources that present the information in ways other than a statement fact will persuade these editors that the inconsistency matters and is a policy violation. It's therefore not possible to reach "an agreement that can be acceptable to everyone" that also maximizes compliance with policies and guidelines at the moment. They are mutually exclusive and will remain so unless the behavioral issues are fixed and editors are forced to follow the rules. I can see mediation working if it had zero tolerance for various behaviors such as voicing a personal opinion on an issue rather than citing a source/repeatedly making demonstrably false statements/using original research/arguing from first principals etc and the editor was immediately removed from the mediation process. At the moment there is zero cost for behavior that disrupts the process of finding a solution that complies with policy. Until that changes so that this is only about the sources, the policies and the guidelines, I don't think mediation can resolve it. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber, you said "reports of transgressions should be brought to Arbitration Enforcement". I see this kind of comment quite often but do you have any evidence based reason to believe that AE can handle it ? I don't. I've been editing in the ARBPIA topic area for years. I don't know how many AE reports I've watched but it goes back to at least Archive34 and AE is currently on Archive127. What I haven't seen is evidence that complicated issues covered by ARBPIA like persistently biased editing, anything that could involve large amounts of evidence, can be handled at AE. AE hasn't dealt with issues like that for ARBPIA. It has been used to deal with technical violations/edit warring and editors who make patently disruptive edits in the topic area. If AE could deal with (and editors could be bothered to file reports about) the longer term more fuzzy behavioral issues, I don't think we would be here today. The only people who could survive in the topic area would be those who follow the rules and edit neutrally. I would like to see AE become a venue that could deal with these kind of issues but that would probably involve filing test cases (and a lot of drama). Sean.hoyland - talk 20:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

I concur with Pluto's suggestions and Sean.Hoyland's follow up remarks, though I think Nableezy has made the right technical call, unfortunately, because it's realistic enough to appreciate that there is no clear behavioural issue in the extensive discussions that would call for the kind of corrective punishment Tariq's outline seems to suggest. Arbcom's remit is not to fix impossibly compromised pages.

Writing that recent discussions have been 'rekindled with a fire and desperation like never before', is hyperbole, and would appear hysterical were it not from the fact that that is not Tariq's style. Very level headed people (not myself) have honestly tried to work out a compromise and met a stone wall, but manners (AGF compliancy) have been almost impeccable. Just for the record, the humongous threads may be summed up in a thumbail form (Wikipedia#Jerusalem-lead for dummies), which you can without offense take as a time-saving device to avoid reading those massive archives.

There are two deeply problematical assertions in the lead, problematical because the form they take, is, per sources, self-contradictory, and represent poor compromises because of their clumsiness, which confuses two POVs with two facts, while pretending their is no POV problem.

A. 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.'

Put the sentence in propositional form, and you immediately see the problem.

(a) Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
(b) Jerusalem is not (recognized as) the capital of Israel.

(a) is Israel’s POV (b) is the POV of virtually all other states.

B. '(Jerusalem) is Israel's largest city in both population and area, if East Jerusalem is included.

Put the sentence in propositional form, and you immediately see the problem.

(a) Jerusalem is Israel’s largest city
(b) Jerusalem is not Israel’s largest city (since the assertion includes East Jerusalem which in international law is outside of the state of Israel).

(a) is the Israeli POV (b) is the non-Israeli POV.

In both these sentences, (a) an ostensibly factual proposition is asserted, and (b) then challenged as not true. The Israel POV is first asserted as a fact, and then denied as a fact.

Those who are unhappy at the way WP:NPOV appears to be deftly sidestepped here have endeavoured over several years to find a more balanced formula, in which the clash here between truth propositions that contradict each other would be replaced with a perspectival phrasing that clarifies neutrally the competing claims. The issue is resolvable by using the word 'claim' for both parties in (A). (B) should not be in the lead since it is based on a highly dubious if. Every suggestion that tries to address this has failed, in the face of a resolute preference for the text more or less as it stands, which, some argue, privileges the Israeli POV by prioritizing its basic claims as facts (is).Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'(Jerusalem) is Israel's largest city in both population and area, if East Jerusalem is included.

Per WP:NPOV,'(Jerusalem) would be Israel's largest city in both population and area, were East Jerusalem to become part of the state of Israel.' is the only way that sentence could be redeemed, since it is an (improbable) hypothetical astutely rephrased as a combination of a factitious 'fact' and an improbable conditional outrider, since the resident Palestinian majority of the East Jerusalem population refused Israeli citizenship. Of course, as such it has no place in the lead, nor in the text, being a conjectural speculation.Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

This request is an exact mirror of the problems on the article talk page.

We have Dailycare, who agreed to the current wording as a compromise only to come back later, challenge it, POV tag it, change it while declaring he has "consensus by default" because whoever doesn't agree with him is part of the "hatikva brigade" and their views are not valid. Now he pretends the behavioral issue is with Tariq responding to his being a DICK and not with him being a dick in the first place.
Pluto accuses whoever disagrees with him of gaming the system, as if having an opinion and stating it is some kind of sneaky underhanded attempt to play wikipedia's rules in order to corrupt it.
Alertboatbanking, a pretty obvious sock which the resident "sockslayers" don't care about because he supports the result they want.
Sean and Nishidani pretending the people they disagree with do not base their views on reliable sources, which is patently false and obviously dismissive.
I assume ZScarpia will be here shortly to try to chill his opponents with threats, and we'll have a perfect microcosm. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BritishWatcher

I am not convinced that Arbitration on this matter is the right way forward although i agree with a lot of what Tariqabjotu has said. There are three primary problems at present it seems to me and as Arbcom does not usually rule on content matters only one aspect of the situation might be resolved with arbitration and not the wider problem. Firstly we have in recent months seen a number of attempts to change the article, some of which have not been specific proposals, merely the fact some editors believe the current article introduction is wrong. There have been clear opposition to proposals and more editors times seem to support the current wording than any change, let alone a specific change.

Those of us supporting the status quo (which was based on the compromise agreed around two years ago) have on a number of occasions been accused of breaking the rules or doing something wrong, merely for supporting the status quo. So one thing Arbcom could probably help with is reinforcing the fact people are free to support the status quo, and that a change should only take place if there is a consensus. Not a change imposed by a minority of editors seeking to push aside objections.

The other two problems are content issues. The current wording is neutral and balanced. It states that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel but that this is not internationally recognised. That is accurate and balanced, and was a significant change prior to two years ago when the introduction did not mention at all the international community view in the first sentence, because it is handled in detail in another paragraph of the introduction.

Certain editors are insistent that the article introduction be changed to treat Palestine and Israels current situation in regards Jerusalem as entirely equal. That is not the case, and if we tried to treat them as equal it would be giving clear undue weight to the Palestinian POV. Jerusalem is the defacto, and dejure capital of Israel, rightly or wrongly that is indisputably the situation, although the future status of the city is certainly part of the dispute and that is already explained in the introduction.

Yet a few editors are demanding the introduction say Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel and Palestine. When I challenged one of the editors demanding the change to provide sources for this claim saying it would help justify the proposal [22], they initially said they would [23], then when I asked for specific reliable sources that say Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine [24] (which is what they have been demanded be added to the article).. the editor in question all but admits there are not the sources to back up such a statement. [25]. Not only did they never provide the sources requested, none of the other editors demanding change stepped in to provide sources either.

So theres no case based on Wikipedia policies, and no case based on sources for the change they propose. Also there is a third problem that is often overlooked. If we are to change the article to pretend that Jerusalem is not the defacto and dejure capital of Israel (and in Israel), then many other things about the article have to change too. For example at present the infobox shows the Israeli flag of Jerusalem, Israeli emblem for Jerusalem, the mayor of Jerusalem. These would all have to be changed along with huge amounts of the article if the small number of editors got their way and had the article act as though Jerusalem is not the capital and a city in Israel. Also none of those demanding change have produced evidence that a country cannot decide its own capital, or that a capital is dependent on international recognition. The international community officially do not recognise Jerusalem as the capital (something that is made clear) but there are numerous sources showing that Jerusalem does serve as Israels capital. Some countries do not recognise the fact the state of Israel even exists, we do not seek to say it may not exist in the first article of the Israel article.

So again, im not convinced arbitration is the right way forward, but if there was a ruling that editors are entitled to oppose proposals and support the status quo, it would at least help bring to an end some of the dismissive tones by those demanding the change, as though we have no right to take the positions we do.

Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ravpapa

There is so little one can add to a discussion so prolix! But I feel two things must be said:

First, editors and arbitrators who are looking for a permanent solution to this problem should be disabused: there is no permanent solution, because the situation is not permanent. The political forces affecting Jerusalem's status are constantly changing, and the article should reflect that. What we decide (or, more likely, don't decide) today will not be right tomorrow.

Second, arbitrator SirFozzie has suggested "binding arbitration" as a solution. I would strongly support such an approach if one existed. But, as far as I know, there is no such thing as binding arbitration (am I wrong?). The latest attempt at arbitration failed because not all the parties agreed to participate. Which is why, I believe, Tariq chose this forum to move toward a solution.

Nishidani and others are right that this case is outside the formal purview of the arbitration committee. I would suggest, however, that this is a time for you to take a bold step, live by the spirit of the fifth pillar, ignore all rules, and accept this case. To do otherwise would be to admit that the Wikipedia way has failed: that there are some topics about which we cannot write objectively, and that there are content disputes so intractable that the collaborative editing approach is doomed to failure. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Heim

Arbs who are suggesting a binding RFC or mediation, are you going to make a motion mandating one? If not, I can't see how this is going to happen. Number one, there's no guarantee the parties will make an agreement to such a method, and number two, without ArbCom's stamp, there's no guarantee the result of such a process would be honoured. The naming of Macedonia-related articles was dealt with by an RFC mandated by the committee itself and has as such been clearly enforceable. Leaving it to the community to sort it out without ArbCom's authority tends to lead to more and more discussion with no results. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, yes, it is absolutely true that the community can call RFCs on its own. What it cannot do is make them binding. You ask for people to agree that the result will be binding. That will not happen willingly in heated national/ethnic disputes like this one, it simply will not. Notice we've already had participants who disagree with doing so at all. It's true that it's theoretically possible for the community to force people to abide by the result through extensive policing; in practice, the community has practically never had the patience or collective attention span (and collective attention span is a really hard thing to achieve in any case) to police it well enough. Coming from the perspective of an AE admin, I would generally be unwilling to enforce in cases like this without AE rules to back me up. So if you're convinced we don't need a binding RFC at all, fine, but please don't go down this road of "we don't need a motion, the community can do it itself". That position is not grounded in the reality of what Wikipedia is like. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rschen7754

I've been thinking about the same thing for days, and Heimstern beat me to it. What makes the binding RFC binding is ArbCom's say-so. Otherwise, one of the parties won't agree to it just as they wouldn't agree to the mediation, and the whole thing will be a wash. You need at least a motion for it. --Rs chen 7754 08:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork nooooo. Having been in a similar boat many years ago, a binding RFC is what is needed, and is what the committee can do here. Otherwise, there is nothing binding about the RFC if parties do not agree to it. But why would I think that they wouldn't agree to it? Because they didn't agree to mediation, for the exact same reason: what if they lose? Then they have to forfeit the right to argue endlessly and continue disrupting the subject area in the process, while trying to get what they want. --Rs chen 7754 20:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steven Zhang

The issue at hand is no doubt a complex one which has been an issue almost since the inception of Wikipedia. Some community members and arbitrators have suggested a method of binding content resolution for this dispute (which sounds very familiar), however I note that preference seems to be leaning towards holding a binding RFC as opposed to some other form of binding resolution (like mediation). If I could offer my thoughts on the matter, binding RFCs have been used now and then on Wikipedia, with varying results. Some have success and bring peace, others are hopeless failures. Sometimes this is because the issue is so bitter that reconcilliation between editors is impossible, and the period in which an RFCs result is binding serves only as a brief ceasefire in a bitter war. In other situations (like the Abortion RFC), the structure of the discussion/vote is the cause of downfall. I would suggest mediation to be the better alternative, under the guidance of an experienced mediator. I am quite surprised that the Mediation Committee rejected a request for mediation when fourteen out of the sixteen listed participants who commented on the case (out of a total nineteen) accepted the request (and the requirements of acceptance was changed earlier this year to not require unanimous acceptance), but nevertheless, what's done is done.

I agree with what Nableezy said about a binding RFC being a bad idea. This situation seems to be too entrenched for anything except a split vote to occur, with minimal community input due to the contentious nature of the dispute, ending with a result of no consensus. Binding mediation has no real precedent that I know of, but it may be what's needed. For what it's worth, I'd be happy to mediate such a dispute - I think I'd be able enough to do so. But it all comes down to what's best for the dispute. I'd suggest mediation, failing that, a salted earth remedy like the Scientology case may be required. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ArbCom, my experience with the I/P articles is that people are reluctant to get involved because of the environment that exists in the topic area. The other thing I note is that the arbitration motion directs the community to set up the process, which in the past has had varying results. An RFC format is too free-form for a dispute of this nature. I think that mediation should be used to develop alternate proposed lede sections, like in the verifiability mediation, then followed by an RFC that is binding. It would create a more productive discussion. Please consider. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 23:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ArbCom, I'm aware that ArbCom cannot order mediation. They can, however, encourage for such a thing to take place (this was done in Prem Rawat 2. I also point out that in the Abortion case, the case closed at the end of November 2011, but wasn't opened until the end of February, after being set up by yours truly. The wording of the proposed motion below asks the community to set up and hold an RFC on the issue. But given the nature of the dispute, I have to wonder whether anyone would be willing to do so. I am not asking ArbCom to order mediation, but if the only option is a bad one (and I rarely talk out against ArbCom, but I only do so in this instance because I feel that throwing this dispute into an RFC in the deep end would be a bad idea) - then it should be passed back to the community. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 05:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by cptnono

The talk page has obviously failed. Editors are filibustering to the point that it is almost as disruptive as edit warring and it appears that no one wants to budge out of fear of hurting their cause. As mentioned on the talk page, a request for mediation with certain parties not invited could be a solution. For example: I don't want to spend hours discussing the issue. Nableezy not being invited would also be beneficial (he declined mediation but kept on arguing on the talk page) while others could also take a step back and let those without such passion hammer it out in a more structured, concise, cooler, and objective manner. An RfC might be fine but a select group of editors already involved might fix this in mediation. Conversely, people are going to argue over this issue no matter what the wording is so maybe the status quo is perfectly fine. The article might actually be sufficient as is and the issue is primarily talk page behavior instead of how the article currently comes across to the reader. I lean towards the former since there is nothing that cannot be improved.Cptnono (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Irrelevant to this case request. --Lord Roem (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The problem is obviously one of excess demand. This suggests that filing and commenting on Malleus related cases is simply too cheap. What we need is an entrance fee. Every time someone feels the need to file such a case they need to cough up, say, 70$ (I dunno, give it to the Wikimedia Foundation, or better yet, some charity). Every time someone feels like they must comment on the case, it's 10 smackeroos.

If you wanna translate this into Wikipdia-costs, then make it an automatic week long block for filing a case, and a day block for commenting. Standard procedure, no stigma, you just got to lay off for awhile.

That way, if there's a truly serious problem which really is deserving of a case, the person or persons concerned will be perfectly willing to cough up the cash, forkout the funds, bankroll the blocks. If it's the standard frivolous bullshit, they'll think twice about it.VolunteerMarek 20:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia

I'm in the camp which views the current wording as a prolonged case of prima facie point-of-view pushing. Since about 2007, I've participated in a couple of the futile, labyrinthine and archive-spanning attempts to change it by means of talkpage discussion.

That the current wording violates Wikipedia's neutrality principle has been shown (and ignored) time after time in the nine years that the current wording has stood.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts."
"Avoid stating opinions as facts."

Further Clauses ...

"Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views."
"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies.
"NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."
"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

Some history: after the 1967 War, the UN passed a series of resolutions stating that any current or past unilateral Israeli attempts to change the status of Jerusalem, East and West, were invalid, including Israel's Basic Law of 1980 which declared Jerusalem its capital.

Example UN resolution text ...

As one example, see Resolution 478 of 1980: "[the UN Security Council] determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent 'basic law' on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith." As another example, see Resolution 267 of 1969: "that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel which purport to alter the status of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, are invalid and cannot change that status." (see article Positions on Jerusalem)

Example repercussions od UN resolutions ...

Accordingly, the UK government, for example, takes the position that: "... no state has sovereignty over Jerusalem. The UK believes that the city's status has yet to be determined, and maintains that it should be settled in an overall agreement between the parties concerned." One recent demonstration of the disputed status of Jerusalem was at the London Olympics, where the BBC listed Jerusalem as the seat of government, rather than capital, of Israel (and East Jerusalem as the intended seat of government of Palestine). Another concerned a complaint made to the UK Press Complaints Commission about The Guardian stating that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. The Commission ruled that there had been no breach of its code (The Guardian subsequently updated its style guide so that it no longer calls Tel Aviv Israel´s capital, instaed just stating that Jerusalem should not be referred to as the capital of Israel).

Given the above, I cannot see how "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is not a seriously contested assertion and that making it in the Lead of the article does not, therefore, breach the neutrality policy. In fact, the first sentence in the Lead doesn't even properly summarise the body of the article.

In line with the neutrality policy, editors have been asked to modify the Lead so that it either states something that it is not disputed, such as that Jerusalem is the declared capital of Israel or that it is the capital under Israeli law, or that it represents the claim that Jerusalem is the capital as the Israeli point of view. Nobody is particularly exercised over the form of words used, so long as the neutrality policy is adhered to. However, ignoring the Wikipedia definition of what a fact is, it is an article of faith with editors taking the Israeli view that it is a fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Therefore, what looks as though it should be a trivial matter to fix, has taken on the dimensions of an ideological struggle. To support their position, editors taking the Israeli view have advanced identical, partisan arguments to those advancing the Israeli position outside Wikipedia, ignoring the counter-arguments and falsifying the position of what is commonly referred to as the international community. A set of double standards has been applied in order to minimise, or avoid, mentioning the Palestinian position on Jerusalem in the Lead.

(more to follow) ← ZScarpia 12:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC) (hats placed in text -- 12:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Perhaps two discussions should be held, one on how to observe the neutrality policy and one on the actual wording, with the former being the more necessary. Some previous discussions have ended with a show of hands on who thinks that it´s a fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, subverting the principle that, in Wikipedia, facts are based on sources, not editors's opinions. A bit of regard for policies would be nice. On the question of whether there have been any behavioural issues, I'd say, definitely yes, nine years worth. ← ZScarpia 13:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by formerip

Noting the suggestion that RfC closers should be appointed in advance. I don't strongly mind if this happens, but in past successful binding RfCs (e.g. VnT, Muhammad), these details have been left to disputants and have not been imposed by anyone. Editors have put out their own "adverts" for closers, held their own auditions and applied for mediation in the normal way (e.g. to formulate an RfC question). I don't think there would be any clear benefit to ArbCom assuming this role. The risk, on the other hand, is that disputants may decide not to respect the outcome, on the grounds that ArbCom chose badly. For the Muhammad RfC, the in-advance/when-the-time-comes issue was decided (by disputants) in favour of the former, so that editors would not be able to bypass the RfC and instead appeal directly to the closers. The decision here might be different, but I think it should not be a matter for ArbCom. Formerip (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Sent by me to the clerks' mailing list, a moment ago: "Dear clerks, You will notice that it is now mathematically impossible for the Jerusalem RFAR to be accepted. However, an arbcom-l thread regarding this case request is pending, and we are waiting to hear back from one arbitrator on a particular point of discussion. Therefore, please do NOT archive this case request until further notice. I've copied this instruction to the on-site clerk notes section." AGK [•] 23:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tritomex

I wish to point out, that the initial question of this subject was the both part of this sentence. Those two parts namely "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" and "although not internationally recognized as such" were equally but separately viewed as they are already balanced. Numerous sources are relating to this subject, without mentioning international dispute in the lead. F.x CIA fact book [26] National Geography and [27] and [28] Index mundi [29] even in sports and entertainment [30] etc. So if this sources without any dispute point out that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, our lead is at least already balanced with the negation of this claim through "international community" --Tritomex (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

We need better management of case requests. Something is very wrong when an experienced administrator has an expletive-containing hissy fit after the arbitration committee refuses to take a case related to an intractable dispute. Would you all please stop abdicating your responsibilities: you Tariq, and you The Committee. Jehochman ^Talk 14:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/0/3)

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

Awaiting statements, though I see the argument that a case would be useful here. Courcelles 23:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a good point below -- is there enough misconduct to justify the time spent on a case, or can we get to the point quicker, and where a case would surely end up, by ordering a binding RFC by motion as we have done in cases with similar problems in the past? (Abortion, Ireland, Muhammad Images, etc.) Courcelles 18:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Decline as a full case, though I support a motion ordering a binding RFC, and agree a motion is necessary to actually make it binding. Courcelles 20:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting statements, but I'll note that this sort of dispute is exactly where WP:YESPOV, applied in good faith by editors striving to reach a neutral statement describing a contested reality, is supposed to prevail. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm OK with a binding RfC, if that's the direction we want to go. Jclemens (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also await statements, but I note the apparent failure of community-bred compromise to hold for any great length of time, and I consider that failure to indicate that an arbitration case may be necessary. The failure of previous attempts at mediation is particularly concerning, and I welcome comment regarding why mediation has so far failed to achieve a lasting solution to this dispute. AGK [•] 01:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, existing conduct issues can be dealt with under the discretionary sanctions provision of WP:ARBPIA. As a result, only a content dispute is left, which this committee can merely pass back to the community. Decline because, sadly, we can do no more good to this dispute. AGK [•] 23:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear up front, the Committee will not rule on the content-based part of the dispute (although I don't think the filer expects that); we will only review the allegations of misconduct. I'm also going to wait on more statements, but I do have a few questions for those posting statements to provide input on:
1. What specific allegations of misconduct are you making? Tariq's initial statement mentions a number of different accusations made by a number of people towards a number of people, but doesn't seem to make any claims of his own. Dailycare's also alleges misconduct, but not by any specific user, and seems to focus more on content besides.
2. Is this misconduct impacting other areas of contention within this topic area?
3. Is there some reason why existing discretionary sanctions will not suffice to resolve this dispute?
4. Would an RFC on the lead section, in which members from the entire community participated, work to bring a compromise to the central issue of content?
5. If this case is accepted, what would you see as an ideal outcome of the case? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - Decline as a primarily content-based dispute. I would also suggest a binding RFC to resolve this matter. If it can be demonstrated that there is misconduct preventing discussion beyond the issue of the introduction to Jerusalem I may reconsider (and I would again ask for answers to the questions above, which most people seem to be ignoring), but I'm gathering from the statements so far that this is not the case. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline As this case stands, I would suggest binding mediation or binding RfC, I'm not seeing enough "misconduct" to warrant a lengthy arbitration case hearing. SirFozzie (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like the parties to answer whether they think a binding RfC would be a good venue to attempt a more enforced compromise. As mentioned in the statements, this is a relatively "simple" question in terms of the actual content that is the source of the dispute--and ArbCom wouldn't and couldn't be saying what version is correct or proper, so it would be a lot of time and energy that might be better spent at RfC rather than ArbCom. Alternatively, I'd like to see all parties provide more examples of serious behavioral problems. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as this is a content dispute (which is now spilling out onto this case request), and such a dispute is best sorted via a RfC where it is agreed at the start that it will be closed by a named independent admin, and that the outcome will be binding on all users, and can only be changed by a further RfC. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reports of transgressions should be brought to Arbitration Enforcement. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Risker (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion regarding Jerusalem

The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what will be included in the article Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with a specific emphasis on the lead section and how Jerusalem is described within the current, contested geopolitical reality. As with all decisions about content, the policies on reliable sourcing and neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions already authorised in this topic area. The discussion will be closed by three uninvolved, experienced editors, whose decision about the result of the discussion will be binding for three years from the adoption of this motion.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

As proposer. Adopted from the Muhammad images case. Jclemens (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With two caveats, as there is no decision in the usual sense, the disc. sanctions should refer back to the I/P case; and 2) we should likely decide who the closers are going to be now so they can guide and supervise the RFC instead of being thrown a megabyte of text in a couple months. Courcelles 07:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PhilKnight (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the best way forward. Per Courcelles, we do need to decide on admins now rather than at the end, however I have no idea what mechanism we wish to use. To we open the floor to volunteers? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree that we should call for volunteers now. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worth trying. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, worth trying. I've made a small copy-edit, echoing Courcelles above. That is changing "under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision" to "under the discretionary sanctions already authorised in this topic area". Please revert if you disagree with this change, Roger Davies ^talk 20:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the understanding that (unlike for the binding RFC in Muhammad images) we will appoint "supervising administrators" for the discussion soon after the implementation of this motion, not immediately before a decision about the result of the discussion is to be made. AGK [•] 21:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've given this a lot of thought, and I think this is the best solution. Ideally, mediation would have netted a good result, but I hold out little hope of successful mediation given the entrenched positions involved; further, I think it is far outside of our scope to pressure MedCom to accept a case they've already declined. Risker (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

The community should not be asked or directed by ArbCom - particularly in regard to content matters. The community are quite capable of opening a RfC by themselves. I have already offered to assist in closing an RfC as an independent admin, but I feel it would be inappropriate for me to do so if it were an ArbCom directed RfC. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they're able to open an RFC by themselves... why are they here instead? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for the person who opened this case request, though I have noticed that sometimes people request ArbCom assistance earlier than unnecessary. As the community develops dispute resolution procedures which are open to all and can be managed in the open, collegiate manner which epitomizes Wikipedia, so the need diminishes to have a restricted and exclusive system such as ArbCom. I wish to encourage that, and in general I feel that the current Committee has also supported that view. Where the community can set up an RfC themselves I find it inappropriate for the Committee to set up a formal motion asking them to do that. More appropriate for us to simply reject this request with a note that the people involved can set up a RfC - which is what we normally do. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Arbitrator comments: I'll note that I originally opposed the wording that passed in the Muhammad Images case, and while I'm not repudiating my oppose in that case, and some of my objections to the wording apply equally well to this case, I'm also mindful that the wording and the ensuing process was accepted by the committee and the community, and thus prefer to repeat what has worked, rather than try and invent a substantially new remedy. Jclemens (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]; For Heim: The community have already set up provision for ensuring that a consensus decision is enforced without having to resort to ArbCom. An uninvolved admin can block a user who consistently and disruptively refuses to comply with a clear consensus decision or who disrupts a valid consensus seeking process. There is no need for either ArbCom or AE admins to get involved. As Wikipedia develops so we are ensuring that various forms of disruption can be dealt with. Wikipedia does have problems with content disputes, but as a community we are working on ways that we can directly solve them. I don't feel that having ArbCom - which is a last resort mechanism - stepping in at this stage is sending out the right message to support and encourage the community to continue working on solving content disputes. The Committee could have allowed the community the opportunity to resolve this - so far there have been talkpage discussions, and two failed attempt at mediation (which requires all parties to agree - something that is not always possible), but there has been no RfC. In a case like this where there is no user misconduct, and insufficient attempt to engage the Wikipedia community in resolving the issue has been made, coming to ArbCom is not appropriate. It's worth revisiting Wikipedia:Consensus to see the suggestions that are made, which have not been explored in this case, and to note that ArbCom is seen as the last resort. And so that it is clear that I am not shifting responsibility elsewhere, I had offered to assist in a RfC two days before this motion was proposed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
 {{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}}
-==Dilazak==
-'''Initiated by ''' Dilazak1 '''at''' 07:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
-=== Involved parties ===
-<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
-*{{user|Dilazak1}}, ''filing party''
-*{{user|Moarrikh}}
-<!-- 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. -->
-*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dilazak#Reply
-*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMoarrikh&diff=529272489&oldid=524021749
-;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 -->
-*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dilazak&oldid=524244611
-*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dilazak&oldid=522552305
-*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dilazak
-=== Statement by Dilazak1 ===
-This request is regarding repeated edits on [[Dilazak]] page by one [[User:Moarrikh]]. I have tried to engage with him for discussion many a times but his replies are arrogant, abusive and reflective of pre-determined racial & biased approach. Even his recent reply on Dilazak1 is an example to that, wherein, he has called me ‘Dilajacki’. (Gangs of young Indo-Pak living in UK and other countries actually use these words to abuse each other. Indians will call Pakistanis as ‘Pakis’ and Pakistanis will call Indians as ‘Black Indians’. The same approach has been displayed by Mr. Moarrikh a number of times.) I will keep reverting his edits but that is turning into an edit war. Please help me because he is disgracing a community time and again. I request that he should be either warned or blocked from doing so.
-<br> As far as his opinion is concerned, All Afghan(Pashtoon) tribes (Except the Dilazak) arrived in Indian sub continent in 17th century. If those tribes call Pakistan as one of their historical homeland then the Dilazak merit that too. Afghan in Pakistan are as old as Afghans in India. I can give my reasons and referrences to that. But the question is regarding insulting behaviour displayed by Mr. Moarrikh. Just in his last edit, he completely went rogue e.g. he wrote "The Dilazak (Urdu : دلزاک) is a Hindu people, primarily living in India and in Karachi Pakistan as Mohajer Qaumi Movement of Urdu speaking Indian immigrants to Pakistan.".
-<br>
-His edits not only are biased as far as India is concerned but politically motivated as well. His edit on 22 Nov, 2012 says
-<br>
-"India is not a primary residence of any Pashtun tribes rather a foreign place where many Pashtuns emigrated to from eastern Afghanistan province of Pakhtunkhwa"
-<br>
-'[[Khyber Pakhtunkhwa |Pakhtunkhwa]]' is a province of Pakistan and not Afghanistan. The Taliban do not accept this and move through porous borders between Afghanistan and Pakistan on the same plea. How much menace they have created in the region, the world knows. This sentence is also indicative of Moarrikh's home country as Afghanistan or tribal areas of Pakistan. His IP indicates 'Leeds-UK' address. The matter will certainly be referred to UK Embassy for investigation. This should NOT be taken as threat, please; so many people have lost their lives because of such extremist beliefs. I have mentioned it here after a considerable thought process, to highlight the hidden but serious approach of Moarrikh.
-<br>
-I have just observed that Moarrikh was previouly warned & bocked for Personal attacks and harassment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block/RegentsPark). He has been insulting Wiki Editors as well. Why is he not being dealt as he should be? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moarrikh#Blocked)
-<br>
-In view of the above mentioned points, I request Wiki Administrators to take necessary steps for blocking this individual.
-=== Statement by {Party 2} ===
-=== Statement by {Party 3} ===
-=== Clerk notes ===
-:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
-=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/8/0/1) ===
-<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small>
-*It seems likely that this request is premature for [[Wikipedia:Arbitration]], which is a long and complicated process that represents the ''last step'' in [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]]. Could an uninvolved administrator (perhaps one with some subject-matter expertise) who watches this page please evaluate the dispute, decide if any administrator action is required, or if appropriate refer the parties to the appropriate dispute-resolution process? Thanks, [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 19:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
-**'''Decline''' in favor of earlier stages of dispute resolution, per other arbitrators' comments below. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 21:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
-* I agree with Newyorkbrad that this is far from ready for arbitration. In all likelihood it easily can be handled by an administrator or at one of the noticeboards. I would advise Dilazak1 to read carefully the [[WP:NLT|No Legal Threats policy]] as although he doesn't appear to have crossed the line, there are bright lines that he needs to be aware of. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|''talk'']]</sup> 20:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
-** '''Decline'': &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|''talk'']]</sup> 19:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' per above.  This looks like it could be handled in short order at [[WP:ANI]] or another less formal venue. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 22:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' - the exchanges between Dilazak1 and Moarrikh on [[Talk:Dilazak]] are unpleasant, and I have left a notice regarding making personal comments on both their talkpages, however, there isn't evidence of significant disruption, nor of excessive misconduct. The [[Dilazak]] article appears to be developing, and has had the attention of several editors in addition to Dilazak1, who is the creator and main contributor. I feel the article would benefit from more users looking at it, but that is the case for the majority of articles on Wikipedia, and [[Dilazak]] doesn't appear to be in need of special attention at this moment.  '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<font color="#347C2C"><sup>✔Tea time</sup></font>]]''' 20:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
-*'''Decline'''. <font color="#cc6600">[[User:David Fuchs|Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs]]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">[[User talk:David Fuchs|talk]]</font>)</small></sup> 21:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' as premature. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 21:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''', and suggest that the complainant read [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]] in order to understand what is the next appropriate venue of dispute resolution. [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 21:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' as premature. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 19:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 == SchuminWeb ==

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6