Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:31, 11 March 2010

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Durova		9 March 2010	{{{votes}}}
Elizabeth II		9 March 2010	{{{votes}}}
Trusilver's unblock of Brews ohare	Motions	1 March 2010	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024
Clarification request: Noleander	none	(orig. case)	3 July 2024
Amendment request: Durova	Motion	(orig. case)	4 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Shortcuts

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

This page is for statements, not discussion.

If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (more information).
Your section must not contain more than 500 words (Word Count Tool; internal gadget). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, either make the request in your statement section or email the clerks email list.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Durova

You have apparently accidentally removed the template and all instructions for setting up an arbitration case from the arbitration pages, so forgive me if this isn't perfect. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 22:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs)
Durova (talk · contribs)
PeterSymonds (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Rlevse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Blurpeace (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Durova: [1]
PeterSymonds: [2]
Rlevse: [3]
Blurpeace: [4]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

First invitation to initiate conduct RfC.[5]
Second invitation to initiate conduct RfC.[6]

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

I left Wikipedia over harassment by Durova. I'm only willing to return if sufficient sunlight is placed upon the harassment that she cannot effectively continue it.

However, Durova has many friends willing to suppress information about her. User:Rlevse has abused oversight to remove negative information about her, in clear violation of WP:OVERSIGHT, which does not allow the removal of links to off-wiki descriptions of the harassment, with fair-use quotes.

On Commons, her friend Blurpeace uses fraudulent copyright claims. Fair use quotation of a short section of a conversation, for criticism and commentary has never been a copyright violation. As well, he's a clearly involved user, as one of Durova's friends.

On Wikipedia, the moment a conversation begins going against her, she merely has to ask for it to be archived, and ~~one of her friends~~ someone will step in to do so, removing any need for her to substantiate her claims. [Edited: PeterSymonds says he has dropped out of Durova's circle and I beleive him]

Much of the harassment, while entirely Wikipedia related, happened off-line. The clearest on-wiki harassment I've found is [7], which is not a direct link, for reasons that will be clear upon seeing what she attempted to pull.

On [8], she makes accusations against me, and when challenged to substantiate them, me even giving permission for her to quote them, provided she does so in full, she simply begins repeatedly asking for the thread to be closed.

Durova had been continually hounding me over tiny issues for months: writing an article on sound restoration for the signpost, when she wanted to do one; making a joke page with another contributor she disliked, and then, when I politely pointed out a bizarre decision by her in a set nomination, here, she cursed me out for 15 minutes on Skype, said "Fuck you, troll" about 10 times in said conversation. The link to it is http://wikidwatch.blogspot.com/2010/03/why-to-avoid-wikipedia.html - I will point out again that there is NO POLICY JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS BEING OVERSIGHTED under WP:OVERSIGHT.

In this egregious attack, she vowed, because I made a polite comment about a strange restoration choice:

To prevent me getting the scanner she had promised to arrange through Wikipedia grant, which was necessary for me continuing work.
To keep me from working on Tropenmuseum items.
An implied threat to keep my name out of a Tropenmuseum exhibition, for which she had got large numbers of us to do major restoration work on Vickeboons. This exhibition seems to have disappeared; while she did get access to Tropenmuseum material for herself, the exhibition was meant to happen sometime in 2009, and apparently either never existed, or was abandoned when she got what she wanted. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 21:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the Arbcom: I'm unwilling to continue editing while Durova - who represents the Wikimedia Foundation to quite a number of museums - is held as above the law. As is made clear by others, there is no other appropriate process for the review of this information. As such, I feel that Wikipedia is unable to deal with such behaviour, that it's likely to continue, and I want no part of this site.

I have set up my e-mail for Wikipedia. If someone wants to attempt to deal with this, they may e-mail me. Any e-mails suggesting I simply reconcile with Durova will be deleted, without reply.

Should, by some miracle, this case be accepted after all, you have my e-mail.

Goodbye. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 19:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

Unexpected real life events arose today that are much more important than anything on wiki. This reduces my availability substantially. Durova⁴¹² 22:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shoemaker announced conditional retirement while I was away handling that real world problem. For clarity: he is welcome to edit. Per the promise from October 28, I will refrain from participation at his featured content candidacies. That promise that has already been kept for five months. Polite distance is the best way forward.

Normally RFAR states the basis for a case; specifics would wait for the evidence phase. A large number of accusations have been made here. Since a case is unlikely to open these leave unanswered questions. So here's a way forward: if the remainder of this statement is unsatisfactory please copy the requester's complaint to a user conduct RfC and please be patient about the response. Right now I can't promise to submit full evidence to the Committee within their normal time; it would take a lot of time and research to respond fully.

Shoemaker's claims have a lot of misrepresentation. For example, at "a bizarre decision by her in a set nomination here", he links only to his own post. The full discussion is Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/"The Raven", Édouard Manet's illustrations. What Shoemaker's Holiday was suggesting was that we rotate an illustration by a major French impressionist 180 degrees from how it appeared in the first edition; he was violating WP:NOR. The community supported my decision unanimously.

Only two Wikipedia arbitration cases have ever been vacated. Shoemaker's Holiday was the subject of one of them. Throughout that year and a half I was his strongest advocate and supporter. The Committee announced its revised decision on 18 June 2009.[9] From January through June 2009 Shoemaker's Holiday filed more arbitration motions and requests than any other editor. His requests were often not substantial enough for action. I would quietly take him aside and ask him to reconsider; he would agree they were poor choices and attribute them to his health. So I would support him or at least excuse him: he seemed to be doing the right thing in all the wrong ways. Some people thought his outbursts were staged; I believed him. I prioritized his appeal ahead of my own. Afterward when I filed my appeal his actions undermined it.

Last October Shoemaker's Holiday boasted to me how he got his case vacated: he would email the Committee, then if they didn't do what he wanted he would file motions to tie up their time. He called it clever to win concessions that way. At first I was speechless; afterward a former arbitrator confirmed the basics. Shoemaker had misled me for many months. Of course I was angry; in one conversation I talked to him like the sailor I used to be. It didn't come from nowhere and it wasn't repeated. If Shoemaker's Holiday agrees to copyleft license his half I will post the entire log in user space, and also copy this RFAR there.

For two days I've searched for a log where he made the boast. It may have happened in voice so there isn't any log or else it could be someplace I haven't had time to check. As partial confirmation about the reasons for vacating Shoemaker's case see this statement by an arbitrator.[10] After his case was vacated in June Shoemaker started being candid to me about his emails with arbitrators.

The following quotes are republished per Shoemaker's permission.

[7/23/2009 8:45:37 AM] Shoemaker's Holiday says: I've told MR. Bain that if he'll remove or clarify his statement, I'll drop everything

[10/7/2009 7:45:05 AM] Shoemaker's Holiday says: As I told John [Vandenberg], I think that all that can really be done at this point is to either add an official note to the older instance of the claims at it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy would also suffice.), saying the statement is inaccurate/unsubstantiated, or simply remove it as unsubstantiated. There are, to my knowledge, no links anywhere to the July discussion that actually triggered this. If there are links, same changes there.

From the only email Shoemaker ever bcc'd me, dated 8/9/09:

So, yes, the Arbcom fucked up muightily [sic], and I don't think anyone reasonable could say that I'm not right to be angry. However, the Arbcom's response has been to ignore my comments, refuse to deal with problems regarding me, just in the last week, Archiving a blatantly false attack by Stephen Bain which they had promised to deal with, and now, Risker saying the fucking Matthew Hoffman case, [personal disclosure redacted], was actually right, and that he only voted to withdraw it in order to shut me up. The Arbcom's handling has consistently been slow, with poor communication, several months taken to deal with things, and any concession being met with Arbcom members later complaining about it. Even Charles Matthews had his self-serving "It's all Adam's fault, my gross personal attacks had nothing to do with it", http://brianna.modernthings.org/article/226/charles-matthews-evolution-not-revolution - and that after I agreed to drop all discussion of him in the case because I thought he really wanted to make amends.

The quotation Shoemaker attributes to Charles Matthews is not in that link nor is there any equivalent assertion.

In retrospect the pattern shows: Shoemaker was negotiating for concessions, leveraging misrepresentations and false accusations. He never showed me that side until after his case was vacated.

Shoemaker's Holiday has a history of using arbitration motions for political reasons. Consider the possibility that he started this one in order to damage a reputation as much as possible. If he had started an RfC as I suggested I could have responded to every accusation. But an RFAR that doesn't open can be misused as a platform for attack.

Now I'm going to apologize to Charles Matthews. Two years ago I read emails of his without his permission. That broke my values. There are reasons for the old custom against it. Durova⁴¹² 20:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie

I have recused on this, because of knowledge of the parties, and because quite frankly, I have strong feelings on this. Shoemaker's Holiday, respectfully, you need to drop the WP:STICK, and walk away. I see no way this case will be accepted, nor any reason it SHOULD be accepted. Seriously, your behavior in this issue is disruptive here and it needs to end, and quickly. SirFozzie (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shoemaker, again, with all due respect.. you are NOT getting it. You are doing the equivalent of emotional blackmail here (that you won't edit here unless the Committee sanctions Durova out of your area. Also.. please note I'm saying it's the equivalent of.. I'm not accusing you of blackmail). I'll be one of the first to admit you have done a lot of quality work in the area of Featured Picture candidates, etcetera, and I'd be saddened if you decline to contribute any further.. but this crusade does you no good, on or off-wiki. If it's causing you this much trauma/stress.. then please, walk away for your own good. SirFozzie (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Privatemusings

The link to shoemakers blog should never have been oversighted - I think Rlevse should apologise for that bungle.

The content of the skype chat is rather upsetting, and I can understand why Shoemaker felt bad - I think Durova should apologise for her part.

Shoe needs to be mindful of the bad habit that it's easy to get into where you leave, come back, leave, come back etc. etc. - it's probably unhealthy - but I hope clearing the air on some of this might be useful. Privatemusings (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

I was hoping Shoemaker's Holiday could be persuaded to withdraw this and seek some alternative means of resolving the issue. It's not actionable here, for sure, and the claims of harassment are exaggerated and not appropriate. Clearly SH feels hurt and angry and there may be something that can be done about that either through voluntary actions or some kind of dispute resolution process but this is just not arbitration material. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@MZMcbride: Have you not noticed how Durova has taken on board the comments in that RFC? She is now, if anything, more likely to assume good faith to excess than to hastily judge someone. That RFC is completely irrelevant to this case, which is a bilateral dispute between two former friends who seem to have had a falling out and one at least wants to play that out on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 19:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request by PeterSymonds

Please remove me as a party to this case; I wish for no involvement. My only involvement was the closure of the AN discussion, which has no bearing on anything relating to this request for arbitration. If there is a misconception that Durova solicited my closure off-wiki, please be assured that is not the case, as I explained here. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Juliancolton

I admire and respect both of the primary parties, so it's hard for me to take sides here. However, I'd just like to note that I wouldn't be so quick to reject this case if I were an arb. After several months, no resolution or compromise is in sight, and it's having a negative impact on multiple areas of the project (and indeed spilling into other projects now). I'm not especially familiar with the details of the ongoing quarrel between Shoe and Durova, but having had seen logs of one particular conversation of theirs, I can understand the reason for frustration on Shoe's part. At the same time, I'm left wondering why this dispute has dragged on for so long, and why it keeps getting stirred up. This is just a preliminary statement, and I'll add more details in time. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ arbitrators opining to decline: How else do you feel this dispute is going to be resolved? It's not limited to off-wiki discourse, as evident by the multiple threads at various admin noticeboards. This ongoing quarrel is harming the project, causing prolific contributors grief, and shows no sign of letting up. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell captures my thoughts nicely. The purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to help resolve harmful disputes; if this isn't a harmful dispute, I don't know what is. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mitchazenia

Ok, this was not something I expected. I had just yesterday mentioned that I hadn't seen Shoe in months, but I have been around during the major off-wiki disputes. I really haven't talk to Durova in almost a week, mostly due to Skype technology problems. However, I think there is a point where we have to say enough is enough, but demanding community sanctions to places where you work, especially in the featured contribution department isn't going to help, and honestly. Shoe, I respect you, and I listen to you all the time, but man, its time to end this, just put it behind, get a fresh start, maybe a new username, and just go on. It's not that hard, and dealing with it in other ways helps :) - I am adding that I won't declare a side, maybe except that of a black hole somewhere in the next galaxy. I don't wanna be accused of supporting Durova while senile. - Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 22:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mbz1

It feels to me that Shoemaker's Holiday is put in a corner, with no exit. He posted to AN/I with no result, the link to Skype talk was removed, he was prohibited to use his user/talk pages to say why he left, and now he posted here. Maybe this is not the right place to ask for the resolution, yet the most important thing is a person, who needs some understanding. Dear Durova, I would like to appeal to you, please. You said: "I am a former sailor: on rare occasions when it's really deserved I speak like one." Everybody is different. Some people are hurt by a sailor's language more than others. Please do consider an apology. Just think about this: You could make a person feel better, you could make all that case to go away in a flash, you could make the user come back to Wikipedia and Commons, and you could make many users, who care about both of you to be very happy. Thank you, Durova!--Mbz1 (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Julian. It is a rather an unusual situation involving two very valuable contributors. IMO the situation should be talked over, and talked over in an open. Otherwise sooner or later it will come back. I still have a great hope on Durova, who could make it go away with only one sentence. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Blurpeace

This stems from a mutually insignificant misunderstanding, in my opinion. Shoemaker has blown the situation entirely out of proportion and should have stepped away from the horse carcass long ago. I suggest that both parties, especially Durova, apologize to one another, and we move onto more important things. As for being named a party, I request that I be removed. I have no interest in enabling this "drama". Blurpeace 01:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sole Soul

One arbitrator said in a recent case "The idea that creating good content means that you can get away with poor behavior needs to stop". Well, will see if this case even got accepted. Sole Soul (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AGK

The conversation that Shoemaker's Holiday published to his blog on March 6th is very concerning. All else being equal, Durova should never have treated SH the way she did. But to take this matter to arbitration now would be premature. You could both try putting your differences aside and just editing; or alternatively pursue mediation. AGK 01:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dtobias

The "H" Word, "harassment", gets way overused here, and on Wikipedia-critic sites as well. I've seen the Skype conference transcript that's at the center of the Durova/Shoemaker dispute, and my opinion of it has always been that neither party comes off particularly well in it, with lots of overreactions, unreasonableness, and drama-queening all around. Take two chill pills and call me in the morning, both of you. I'm not sure exactly what the ArbCom can do other than perhaps issuing sanctions requiring them to lay off one another. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cirt

I respect the featured content work by both Shoemaker's Holiday and by Durova. This is an unfortunate situation, but I must say I agree with the comment below, by arbitrator FayssalF (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query from SandyGeorgia

Shoemaker's Holiday said:

In this egregious attack, she vowed, because I made a polite comment about a strange restoration choice: To prevent me getting the scanner she had promised to arrange through Wikipedia grant, which was necessary for me continuing work.

Why is Shoemaker getting a grant from Wikipedia for his work? Could I-- or any of the nominators and reviewers and delegates who work so hard at FAC to put Wiki's best work on the mainpage-- get a cup of coffee, or maybe some journal subscriptions?
Why is Durova, or why does she think she is, in a position to facilitate that grant?
Why is court held off-Wiki, whether on Skype or IRC, such that this ugliness spills over to Wiki, partially obscured?

This is not a pretty situation. Perhaps keeping communication on Wiki would be good advice for Durova (and the 80-at-a-time Wiki editors I hear who join her on Skype), but I'm really curious about why Shoemaker has the impression that Durova is empowered to grant him access to Wikipedia funds.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MZMcBride

This is the latest in a long string of incidents involving Durova. The Arbitration Committee has no issue accepting cases without prior dispute resolution, though in this case, there is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durova, among other pages, I imagine.

Durova's behavior has been particularly egregious lately, nearly leading to a formal caution in a recent case and a proposal was put forth, by an Arbitrator, to restrict her from Arbitration cases in general. Her contributions in the project space truly are that bad.

The writing is on the wall and has been for ages. The fact that there are three recusals really speaks volumes: nobody is willing to man up and deal with this problematic user properly, for whatever reason. Probably as she'll go on an unholy tirade accusing people of sexual harassment and whatever else in order to obfuscate scrutiny of her own behavior. This isn't a lack of good faith on my part, mind you, she's actually done this. She went as far as to compare someone posting on her talk page to rape. Seriously.

Who knows. Perhaps the newer Arbitrators have more fight in them and are willing to do the job that needs to be done. Steve Smith? KnightLago? Hersfold? Ball is in your court. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Luna Santin

I know these attract quite a few comments, sometimes, so I'll keep this short and to the point: unless I'm missing something big, I don't think Rlevse or PeterSymonds can be considered active parties in this case (and I'm not sure about Blurpeace, either). Certainly someone might argue that Rlevse's use of suppression was a mistaken interpretation of policy or precedent, but given a read of discussion both prior to and following the action on oversight-l, I don't think a reasonable person would claim Rlevse was acting in bad faith. Likewise, I'm not sure that PeterSymonds is described as having done anything but archive a discussion thread.

Beyond that, I would describe this whole situation as unfortunate in the extreme.

Statement by Jehochman

If the parties won't back down, or volunteer for mediation, please accept this case and resolve it finally. Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I respect both parties in this case, but must agree with FayssalF in the most strongest of terms. Even getting mutually acceptable arbitrators as informal mediators would be useful, and much of the evidence is probably going to be private anyhow. I'd suggest that arbitrators look beyond the bait being dangled by users who have agendas here; nothing good is likely to come from accepting a formal onwiki case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by sort-of-not-really involved The_ed17

I am also really curious if someone can answer SandyGeorgia's first two questions, but that isn't very relevant to this case.

I am a member of Durova's chat on Skype, though I rarely log on anymore. At the time of the final flare-up, I heard about this dispute from both sides. From that knowledge and what I have read here, I firmly believe that both sides have blown this out of proportion. Durova significantly overreacted to Shoe's comment while he has overreacted ever since. Having said that, I urge Arbcom to decline this case. Simply put, no decision you render here can have a positive impact, as it will not force the two to work out their differences to a point where they can at least work in the same general area. Hopefully they will see that in the grand scheme of things, this isn't important; put water under the bridge, folks, and go back to your encyclopedic missions. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Comment by Nsk92

I urge the ArbCom to accept this case. The underlying dispute has been nasty and prolonged, with no end in sight. It is clear that standard venues, like AN/I, are not going to help here. Similarly, this dispute is not about any page or article, so there is nothing really to mediate here. Instead, the dispute is entirely about conduct, primarily off-wiki conduct. WP:HARASSMENT#Off-wiki harassment specifically covers off-wiki harassment and says: "Off-wiki harassment will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases. In some cases, the evidence will be submitted by private email. As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely." If there was indeed, some off-wiki harassment here, as Shoemaker's Holiday alleges, that certainly falls under the purview of the Arbitration Committee and constitutes sanctionalble conduct. It is pretty clear that the parties themselves are unable to settle this conflict (on or off wiki). An Arbiration case, even if no-one is seriously punished but only editors reminded/editors admonished/editors encouraged type remedies are adopted, would still bring the dispute to some kind of closure and allow Shoemaker's Holiday to come back to the project. Plus I think that some sort of a general statement from ArbCom regarding off-wiki conflicts (IRC, Skype, whatever) on wiki-related matters would be useful. Nsk92 (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Will Beback

This is an ongoing dispute which the parties are unable to resolve on their own and which is affecting multiple areas of the project. Mediation seems unlikely to succeed since it concerns behavior rather than content. Perhaps this could be addressed by motion rather than a full case. Will Beback talk 17:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by SB_Johnny

While I don't think either party looks squeaky-clean in this situation, I think a couple principles bear looking into here. First, while this does involve "off-wiki-stuff", I don't think this bears any less relation to the project than what came up with MZMcBride several weeks ago, which was also, technically, off-wiki. Wikivoices is at least as "meshed" with Wikipedia as is Wikipedia Review, and I think if MZ had dodged questions about that issue to the same extent that Durova has in this case, he would have been quickly subject to a motion.

The apparent claims of copyright over the skype log, combined with the "offsite" jargon and Durova's (carefully partial) responses both here and on the noticeboards is creating a toxic atmosphere that needs a thorough airing out. Secret satellite societies (including mailinglists and perhaps now "semi-closed skype communities") have never been good for Wikipedia in the end, and shouldn't be permitted to gain the sort of political clout that's in evidence here. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick insert by Ks0stm

To the arbs (in particular Mailer Diablo and Cool Hand Luke): I thought this said off-wiki attacks could be considered in Arbitration cases. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by FloNight

I ask ArbCom to open a case now. ArbCom is aware that there are long term issues related to both parties. I see no reason to delay opening the case for user conduct RFCs. The thread at AN/I documents the issue related to precipitating event. I agree with the contributors that say that this has spilled over into multiple areas on site and is disrupting the functioning of key areas of Wikipedia. This needs to be resolved with a permanent solution as soon as possible.

For several years now, SH has struggled to find a way to be a good contributor. SH has a lot to offer as a contributor but the editing environment at Wikipedia makes it difficult for him. I think the best way to help him is to open a case and develop a plan for him to execute when he runs into situations where he needs help. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 21:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by the outside looking in, NonvocalScream

Can I suggest the use of technical features for both parties? I know that each mail client has a black/blocklist, skype has an ignore feature, IRC has an ignore command, comments on talk pages can be overlooked by parties, and undone on individual talk pages, by the individual. This is addressed directly to the parties: Respectfully, Can the two of you use these features to wall off the other? NonvocalScream (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tom Harrison

Per Query from SandyGeorgia above, grants from Wikipedia? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Varlaam

I have had my own small episode with Durova, but in her defence, she has given me some helpful advice when other folks were not forthcoming. Varlaam (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mr.Z-man

I don't really have any comments on the case, but what I see is a dispute between 2 wiki users, about wiki activities. The fact that the communication medium that most of it took place on was not on-wiki doesn't seem like it should be especially relevant. Mr.Z-man 05:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/4/3/0)

Recuse SirFozzie (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse But may participate in a non arb role with evidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Shoemaker's Holiday, you are stating here and above that "the worst of the harassment happened over Skype. All such evidence is censored." I am deeply concerned that such a thing could be censored. But then, why have it on-wiki if it happened on skype?! Censorship or —whatever one would call it— doesn't change anything. A friendly note to all parties involved: You used to be very good friends and worked together to enhance the encyclopedia. That was your objective back then (I was invited once to Not the Wikipedia Weekly which was hosted by Durova and yourself on Skype itself). What changed? Focus on that objective and forget about your personal ones. We appreciate both your works but I believe the best approach is to handle it wisely between you two. This cannot be arranged by an ArbCom decision at the time being. Try formal or informal mediation first. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@JulianColton:

Proposal A) User:Durova/Shoemaker's Holiday or User:Shoemaker's Holiday/Durova for mediation purposes. For better results I'd suggest that mediation discussions remain limited to Durova and SH (nobody else).

Proposal B) both users know how to contact eachother off-wiki and settle their dispute.

Proposal C) file a request for mediation.

I'd personally prefer A or B if the users decide to keep it private. C is too formal for this case. But it is up to the parties.

Let me be blunt here, Julian. Do you believe that ArbCom should spend its time on a simple (yes, this is simple as most other similar cases get rejected and directed towards mediation to say the least) user/user dispute which most of it happened off-wiki? Yes, such disputes surely harm the project somehow but only and mainly because the parties insist on pushing them forward and I believe that accepting these kind of cases would be much more harmful. In theory, very experienced users —who used to be friends for a couple of years; cooperating, collaborating on articles and pictures together, presenting ArbCom cases together, proposing mediation for others, etc...— are able to fix their disputes. If these experienced and old friends users can't make an effort to mediate then who would do it?!

Now, I got a simple solution D. If I were Durova I'd just apologize to SH. And then, SH would just say "fine, let's go work on a picture or article". So who is not wanting any of the above 4 proposals?! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse - But may comment in my role as the oversighter who completed the majority of the suppressions to which this matter refers, to provide a description of the relevant actions and discussions without revealing the contents of the suppressed edits. Risker (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. No on-site dispute resolution needed. I agree with FayssalF in full. Cool Hand Luke 02:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accept This is clearly spilling over in multiple areas and since its ongoing, that seems to be an indication that perhaps the community doesn't see a way out of this. There have been comments from others that both editors involved may have been problematic elsewhere; diffs would be appropriate. Shell ^babelfish 08:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accept: broadly per Shell. Roger Davies ^talk 09:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline - I see nothing sanctionable here; unpleasant interactions over Skype are regrettable, but as I understand it they can be blocked easily enough. While I appreciate the parties' desire for sunlight here, I don't see how a case will accomplish anything but increase the unpleasantness. Finally, I note that allegations of abuse of oversight should be brought to WP:AUSC. Steve Smith (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to MZMcBride: the RFC cited was almost entirely about the !! (talk · contribs) affair, which is thankfully long since dealt with. This RFAR is about a specific dispute between Durova and Shoemaker's Holiday. If you believe that there is a pattern of long-term problem behaviour with Durova, I'd encourage you to initiate a new RFC and then, if concerns persist, a RFAR. The value of user conduct RFCs is not only in that they can actually resolve disputes (generally, in my experience, they don't) but that they can crystallize issues and provide some clarity of exactly what behaviour is at issue and how it fits within community norms by the time it reaches ArbCom. Steve Smith (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time there were two star footballers who were once in the same team and were great friends, who worked towards a common goal. One of them got transferred out of the team, and then something very unpleasant happened between the two footballers that soured the relationship to the point that they were not on talking terms, even to the extent of one backing out of the international team because he feels there is no way for them to be working together. When it came to the day where the teams of the two footballers were playing against each other, one of them was still angry at the other that he refused to shake the other's hand, but under the same field for the same ball the game went through for 90 minutes without incident in the end.
The referee doesn't issue a yellow card to either of the two footballers for whatever has happened outside the pitch. He can only show the yellow card if some incident occured as a result on the pitch itself. My suggestion is for the parties to disengage, cool off tensions, and perhaps attempt mediation if it is feasible. Decline. - Mailer Diablo 19:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but I think this is Handbags rather than something more sinister (such as match fixing), which then the sports body would have stepped in. It looks pretty pointless to open a full case for something like this. - Mailer Diablo 20:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II

Initiated by DrKiernan (talk) at 08:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Editors participating at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[11]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by DrKiernan

I would like to request guidance from the Committee on how to resolve discussion on the title of the article on Queen Elizabeth II. Since the article was created, there have been periodic disputes over the choice of article name. In the past, consensus clearly favoured "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom", but recently opinion has shifted towards shortening and simplifying the title to "Elizabeth II".

Date of discussion	Editors supporting requested move	Editors opposing requested move
February 2005	2	13
June 2005	1	13
July 2005	2	15
July 2009	9	13
July 2009	0	9
July 2009	1	8
January 2010	18	15
February 2010	24	11 (at least 3 of whom actually support a move)

Though there has been a shift in opinion, the page remains at its initial location because internal wikipedia processes favour the status quo. As raised in essays such as User:GoneAwayNowAndRetired/Wikipedia is broken and failing, the mantra of consensus can preserve the status quo, even in the face of majority opinion. Polls are rightly denigrated for article content, because there are other ways to develop article content by balancing or weighting different viewpoints. However, reaching a compromise on an article's title is more difficult, and often impossible. Unfortunately, the precedents of Talk:Gdansk/Vote and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names appear to show that intractable and recurrent move disputes are often determined by a majority vote.

The Committee may choose to close this request, preferably by some simple mechanism such as a motion, in several ways. Four of these are:

Decline it. This is obviously unhelpful. The Committee is here to help resolve disputes not to prolong or ignore them.
Ask that editors continue searching for "consensus", either together or through a mediator. I consider this solution impractical, as the issue has already been discussed at length and there is little room for compromise when discussing an article's title.
Ask that editors develop another form of poll to determine the article title. This would appear to be unnecessary as we have already held two polls of one form or another within the last two months, both of which favour the move.
Determine that consensus on the article title has changed and move the page. DrKiernan (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BobbyTables

The Arbitration Committee will decline this...they only have jurisdiction over user conduct, and your request is a content dispute. I think what you're looking for is Request for Comment. Bobby Tables (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by AGK

DrKiernan: you asked for

"guidance from the Committee on how to resolve discussion on the title of the article on Queen Elizabeth II"

The answer to that is to take the dispute to those steps on the dispute resolution hierarchy that are intended for content disagreements. Resolving the dispute may prove tough, but that holds for many other disputes too. Skipping to arbitration is just not an option at this juncture. AGK 01:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/8/0/2)

Decline - ArbCom tries not to hear content issues. Try RfC or something similar. SirFozzie (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An arbitration case is not the customary or best path forward here, but I understand the filing party's wonderment about what is. I would prefer if we can make some form of positive contribution to resolving this issue (even if only advisory) rather than just sending it away. Awaiting further statements with this goal in mind. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - DrKieran, yes... there are precedents as you state. Ireland naming dispute is a good example of how a resolution is reached (content dispute). It should be noted that there was a bit of a direct ArbCom involvement in later stages but I don't believe ArbCom is capable of going beyond that. My suggestion - the first thing to do: Please discuss the possibility of following that example. If you agree then ArbCom would be glad to help you. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Decline Ireland and WP:ARBMAC2 may help as well as RFC. Decline as an arbcase. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline - per everyone above. KnightLago (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as a content dispute. An ArbCom decree doesn't replace consensus; if you're dissatisfied with the methods being used to determine consensus here, use another method of dispute resolution better suited to that end. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline and please consider the advise here about possible ways for resolving the situation. Shell ^babelfish 08:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per my colleagues. Roger Davies ^talk 09:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, content dispute. - Mailer Diablo 10:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline - ArbCom, like the rest of Wikipedia, does not resolve content disputes. Steve Smith (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trusilver's unblock of Brews ohare

Initiated by Sandstein at 06:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
Trusilver (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive599#User talk:Brews ohare block review
User talk:Trusilver#Your comment on the block of Brews ohare and subsequent sections (permalink)

Statement by Sandstein

On February 22 I reviewed a request for arbitration enforcement, now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive56#Brews ohare, concerning edits ([12], [13]) by Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to ANI. I found that these edits infringed Brews ohare's physics discussions topic ban and the discretionary sanctions previously logged by Tznkai (talk · contribs). At 07:22, 22 February 2010 I blocked Brews ohare for a week under the applicable enforcement provision.

Within hours, Brews ohare made an unblock request, which was not reviewed by an administrator for about five days. On 25 February another editor requested a review of the block on ANI, but the thread was archived (now at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive599#User talk:Brews ohare block review) without a clear conclusion.

At 16:55, 28 February 2010, Trusilver, an administrator, granted the unblock request, arguing that the edits did not violate the arbitral ban and that, while the discretionary ban was technically violated, the block or its length was inappropriate. Trusilver also noted that he was unblocking "out of principle" because the block was set to expire soon anyway. Trusilver performed this unblock even though I had previously informed him ([14], [15]) that I opposed an unblock as long as Brews ohare did not credibly promise to stop infringing his bans as advised at WP:GAB.

I am aware that several editors have voiced their strong opposition to the block in the ANI thread and on several user talk pages, although most of them seem to be motivated mainly by their disagreement with the original arbitral decision against Brews ohare (about which I have no opinion) and/or general wikiphilosophical issues rather than the enforcement, as such, of the topic ban(s). I have no problem with fellow editors disagreeing with my administrator actions, or even with them undoing such actions if community consensus against the actions is clear. But unilaterally undoing arbitration enforcement actions, in the absence of the "clear, substantial, and active community consensus" required for such reversals according to this Committee's 2008 motion in re Slimvirgin, undermines the binding nature of the arbitration process and the effectiveness of arbitration enforcement, and is therefore disruptive.

Because Trusilver has declined my request to reinstate the block, instead defending the unblock as an exercise of WP:IAR, and because I may not reinstate it myself per WP:WHEEL, I ask the Arbitration Committee to

reinstate the block for its remaining duration of about half a day or to annotate the block log to reflect that the block was invalidly lifted,
take whatever measures it deems necessary to ensure that Trusilver does not continue to disrupt arbitration enforcement in this manner, and
consider adopting rules that would help prevent future situations of this nature, e.g. by

disallowing overturning of arbitration enforcement actions without explicit permission of the Committee (or of a subcommittee, or of individual arbitrators) under all circumstances, or
by stating more clearly the level of consensus required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action, such as in terms of forum, duration and level of participation.

Thank you for your consideration. Sandstein 06:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Icewedge: Yes, in that it would confirm that arbitration is still a binding dispute resolution mechanism, and not one whose results can be ignored at will by individual disagreeing editors. The project benefits from having a binding dispute resolution mechanism. Sandstein 07:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with respect to Risker's comment: I would like to underline that my block was in enforcement of both the original topic ban and Tznkai's supplemental sanctions. Those additional sanctions I considered to remain in force since they are worded as being unlimited in duration and have been neither repealed nor appealed (at least not successfully). If the restrictions are obsolete or invalid, Brews ohare should have appealed them, not simply ignored them. Sandstein 14:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice - new {{uw-aeblock}} template: This should help to make the current rules more accessible. See discussion at WT:RFARB#AE specific block template. I'd appreciate review by experienced template coders and if possible integration in the appropriate WP:TOOLS. This will need to be updated if any more stringent rules are adopted as a result of this request. Sandstein 19:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Trusilver

The statement above is taken from my talk page and clearly outlines all I have to say on the matter except for this: What I did, I do because of the principle of the matter. If you have principles and then slink away as soon as they are challenged, then you never had them to begin with. The thing that most struck me about this issue is that Sandstein read the ANI complaint, studied the sanctions and the past history, studied the nature of the current complaint and all the history associated with it then wrote up his decision and posted it to the ANI board in a whopping... 12 minutes according to his edit history. Wow... it would take me a minimum of an hour to make a decision I am comfortable with about a situation with this much gravity. I did, in fact, study the situation and everything attached to it for four days before unblocking. The truth as I see it is that Sandstein made a quick block, only doing his homework much later after realizing it was turning into a powderkeg. He then covered up his bad judgement with zealousness. Arbcom sanctions cannot, and must not be allowed as an end run around actually having to use good judgment. He failed. This is all I have and will have to say on this matter. Good morning to all of you. Trusilver 07:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a hatchet job on my statement to trim it down, the rest is on my talk page. I will be more specific when I have a chance to, I'm extremely short on time right now and don't expect that to change until Friday. And just as a totally off-topic observation, I like the new block template Sandstein noted above, it's a definite positive. Trusilver 07:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brews_ohare

There is no case.

The sanctions applicable to Trusilver depend upon whether the block is garden-variety, or imposed by sanction. It isn't just whether the block was a good block, or whether Trusilver showed good judgment, it's also a question of what rules apply.

The nature of the block has received little attention from administrators, who have jumped to the notion that it is a consequence of sanctions.

Block not sanctions related: My lengthy Talk page discussions led to a topic ban to avoid technical discussion related to physics, or physics-related topics. This ban was not violated here, because sanctions do not apply to general discussion, namely here and here, which serve as basis for the block. These diffs are general, not physics-related. Thus, the block is not sanctions imposed, and is not protected against reversal. Details are in my unblock request.

Block violated protocol and majority opinion: The preceding argues there is no sanctions-imposed block. However, even supposing the block is of this nature (which, I repeat, is not proven), it may be overturned because a majority opposes it, and because its implementation was contrary to protocol. Here is why Sandstein's block is reversible:

1. A WP:A/N/E motion was brought by Headbomb to impose a block. All participants were against it. Despite this clear indication that a block was dubious, Sandstein suddenly appeared, closed down the discussion, imposed a block, and erased contributions that arrived shortly after his action. There was no warning, and no attempt made to meet the objections raised. (According to this resolution, "administrators are normally expected to explain their actions, respond to feedback, and otherwise engage in normal discussion and dispute resolution.")

2. The alleged infraction was minor: no harm was done, nor intended. Trivia could be let slide, but Sandstein elected: "So what! Any infraction, whatever its circumstances or result must be punished, and punished as severely as is possible." That despite my originating motives were of a nature to be encouraged, not punished. Sandstein's action violates the wording of the restrictions: “impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Brews ohare repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia”.

3. Following the block, Hell in a Bucket initiated discussion. This discussion was summarily classified as an Appeal (although no motion was under review, only opinions formulated), and shut down by Durova, as being in the wrong venue. As all discussion opposed the block, this action seemed intended to squelch reversal.

4. In subsequent discussion on my Talk page, all but a few opposed the block.

Summary: The block wasn't dictated by sanctions, but elected by Sandstein in a sequence of actions seriously violating protocol, and inviting disciplinary action. Despite two attempts to stifle opinion, except for a very few administrators that came to summary judgment, no-one supported the block. This opposition satisfies the criterion of "clear, substantial, and active community consensus". Trusilver's action supported the majority view that the block was improperly imposed and overly severe. Trusilver has not reversed a block made in response to sanctions, but overturned an improperly instituted block based upon a pretext.

Response to other contributors can be found on my Talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm by Icewedge

"reinstate the block for its remaining duration of about half a day or to annotate the block log to reflect that the block was invalidly lifted", because re-blocking him for half a day will help the encyclopedia so much! Right? Icewedge (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Mathsci

Wheel-warring without discussion on blocks imposed under WP:AE is a strict no-no. Although Trusilver might have found support for his 11th hour symbolic unblock from non-administrative editors, not necessarily uninvolved or in good standing, he does not appear at any stage to have sought feedback from other uninvolved administrators. His unblock could send Brews ohare the incorrect message that (a) he was inappropriately blocked by Sandstein (b) that the disruptive edits concerning a physics-related article are permitted under his ArbCom sanctions. This could easily be dealt with by motion as Steve Smith has written, without any need to clarify Brews ohare's blocklog. Mathsci (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dr.K.

This is a very complex and lengthy case. I have refused to participate in its previous incarnations because I simply could not find the taste to follow the walls of text that were generated during the SoL Arbcom case as well as the rest of the walls of text that were generated in the talkpage of the SoL article itself. I guess now is my time to create my very own walls of text. What drew me in the latest incident was the report by Headbomb to the AE page. I found the report to be an overreaction. I was subsequently shocked to see the length of the block Sandstein imposed on Brews. I have made many statements, all a matter of record, against the block. I realise that there is a bureaucratic process to be followed when there are AE cases and I respect that. I also respect Sandstein as an admin in general but in this particular case I find his actions severe and unbalanced compared to the gravity of the offence. I recently talked with Durova, an editor whom I respect immensely. She suggested that we retroactively bring this matter to RFAR and follow due process so that everyone can go back home happy. I entertained the thought, out of sheer respect for Durova and also because the outcome of all around handshakes and happiness is quite attractive, but I found on retrospect that such optimism is unrealistic because it oversimplifies the issues and principles involved. So I went back to basics. I will not tire you with any more details other than to say that AE is a valuable tool and its processes need to be respected. But it cannot serve as a cover to prolong bad blocks and legitimise dubious reports that unduly stigmatise editors. In clear cases such as this incident, principled and well rationalised actions such as the ones taken by Trusilver are to be commended as they are in fact taken to uphold the best traditions of Wikipedia. Brews was blocked for almost six and a half days, and his unblock was largely symbolic. In cases where the punishment is clearly excessive and disproportionate and thus unduly punitive, sitting on the sidelines and not doing anything not only approaches cruelty but also demoralises the editors who become aware of the situation. Trusilver by making a half day-early unblock simply put on record that there was an error in the original block and took a moral and principled stance that would have made Junius proud. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 08:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary note I am encouraged to note that statements from Risker, Tznkai, Enric Naval, Hans Adler, Durova, Jehochman, Fences and Windows and others point to a direction of understanding and reconciliation as befits the special circumstances, nuances and complexities of this case and an AGF-based wiki environment. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Supplementary note # 2 In regards to SirFozzie's characterisation of the participants in the discussion on Brews's talk page as "highly charged partisans" I hope that intellectual debate with those we disagree with is still possible in Wikipedia without the need to rinse after the debate with detergents. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Tombe

ARBCOM abdicated its responsibility at the AN/I thread when they had a chance to get involved. SirFozzie left us with a riddle and ran away. The discussion thread was then prematurely archived. Consensus at the original arbitration enforcement was unanimously against the block, and indeed, Sandstein even removed one comment [16] which pointed to the real cause of all the trouble.[17] And ARBCOM can't even deal with the current crisis without having to call upon some administrator who clouded the whole issue with some dodgy extra sanctions. Were their own sanctions not good enough? Was there not enough scope to bully Brews ohare using the original sanctions in isolation? There is one thing that ARBCOM doesn't do. They don't arbitrate. Has anybody ever seen ARBCOM arbitrating? Supposing we all woke up tomorrow morning and found that ARBCOM had been over-sighted? We'd ask Jimbo Wales "Oh where Oh where has our great ARBCOM gone?" He'd reply "ARBCOM? ARBCOM never existed". Would wikipedia be any worse off? David Tombe (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Dr. K

Dr. K, The statements of the two arbitrators below require careful analysis. They certainly don't reflect the facts. Both seem to be suggesting that Trusilver didn't discuss the matter. On the contrary, I saw a lengthy discussion between Trusilver and Sandstein on Trulsilver's talk page. And I like the way they tried to portray the opposition as being 'highly charged partisans'. Also, note how they actually suggested that Trusilver should have gone to them to discuss the very thing that they ran away from discussing. The bias beggars belief. I wonder what is coming next. I can't wait to see. David Tombe (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pieter Kuiper

Too much drama. There was no need for Headbomb to report the "infractions", there was no need for Sandstein to issue a one week block (certainly not with such speed), it was not really necessary to unblock (although I am inclined to applaud it), there was no need to bring the case here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Ncmvocalist's proposal to de-admin Truesilver is pushing all this drama to heights of absurdity. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snowden

Agreed its too much drama, but Sanstein was right to bring it here. S/he carries out a pretty thankless task enforcing sanctions and hardly deserves admonition for following the rules. We should also expect admins to following the ruling referenced by SirFozzie below. There are plenty of ways to raise concern about an enforcement and they should be followed. --Snowded ^TALK 11:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ncmvocalist

A joint effort was made by the wide community and the Committee to appropriately address the issue of tendentious editing, and what we have is a single admin destroying the effect of all that time and effort we all could've spent dealing with less controversial issues, like obvious vandalism. Trusilver chose not to assist Brews with an appeal; an admin with a genuine concern would have done so if they felt the block was so bad or there was a procedural irregularity. If Trusilver did this without any appropriate reminders or cautions, this would not be such an issue. But here, Trusilver not just unblocked in the face of cautions against doing so, but inappropriately invoked IAR to rationalize the action. Even in the response to concerns/feedback after the actions were taken, there's no sign of an admin with good judgement. It would be incomprehensible if Trusilver retained an administrator position after exercising such egregiously poor judgement, or engaging in such well-calculated disruption, on a scale that is perhaps historically unmatched. Ncmvocalist (talk)

Was requested to review my view on this so here it is for those who want to read it.

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

Had the issue I raised in my first sentence not existed, and had there been no reminders or cautions, then I would've of course asked for clemency and objected to a desysop - especially in light of some of Trusilver's recent comments that Guy alludes to. However, each of the sentences in my above comment spell out circumstances that existed in this case which I cannot ignore, and so really, my view has not changed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Count Iblis

During the appeal of Brew's topic ban launched by User:Likebox, I was shocked to see that apart from Cool Hand Luke and another Arbitror's input, there was no proper discussion of the arguments. I wrote a last remark that this if Brews were to simply violate his topic ban and if he were to get blocked for that, then some other Admin may unblock him, thereby diminishing the absolute respect for Arbcom topic bans.

Now Trusilver does write that: "the chief problem does not lie with ARBCOM", however this is how it seems to him. You have very unreasonable one week block for something very trivial. However, the very reason why this is so does trace back all the way to the unreasonable Arbcom topic ban. If the topic ban had been reasonable to begin with, then the potential for disrupotion when violating the topic ban would be much better visible to univolved Admins. Of course, then one can still argue that one should appeal the Arbcom topic ban, but as I just explained above, the appeals process in this case was a joke.

Then on the issue of applying IAR, the actual text of IAR does not have any qualifications like that the rule you're ignoring has to be ridiculous. It does not mention any consensus or anything of the sort. IAR is clearly about ignoring a rule in order to improve Wikipedia, nothing more or less. This also means that Arbcom cannot rule on how to apply IAR, because that very Arbcom ruling would be subject to IAR as well. The only way to modify IAR is to modify the actual text of IAR itself. But that is something that can only be done with community consensus, certainly not by Arbcom.

Then the question is is the application of IAR ok. if the sole criterium is that it should improve Wikipedia, as IAR itself says? Clearly, Brews' one week block was hindering his involvement in geology articles. Awickert who Brews was collaborating with, cleary said that the block was a problem. This has to be balanced against the potential of disrupting Wikipedia by the unblocking. On that issue the situation is very clear. Brews merely violating the topic ban would not do any harm at all, as the topic ban is clearly nonsensical. Also, the alleged violation of the topic ban was infinitessimal. I can repeat again here that if Arbcom were to only issue topic bans in cases where it is clearly necessary, you couldn't have had a case like this. Count Iblis (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100% with Hans Adler Count Iblis (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New comment by Count Iblis

Desysopping Trusilver would be too harsh as AGK points out. An argument by me in which I compare this case with that of another far more problematic Admin who was not desysopped was removed by Arbcom on the grounds of "soapboxing" and "irrelevancy". In that argument I argue that ArbCom takes to much a procedural attitude when making decisions. The fact that my original comments cannot be admitted is presumably due to the same flaw. Count Iblis (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Likebox

Sandstein enforced the ruling following its exact letter, as it was when it was issued. Still, he was patiently informed before closing of some points ( see here): continued...

Not only did all this not influence Sandstein decision, Sandstein closed and archived the active discussion, While an editor was inserting a comment [18]! That's bad behavior.

Premature archiving disrupts. In this case it seems to have been done purely for self-interest. I will ask ArbCom to consider this point in its deliberations.

Trusilver acted correctly in this case.Likebox (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Heabomb/Finell See here

To All Administrators Who Are Following This: The context is the SlimVirgin case. SlimVirgin reverted an Arbcom enforcement block, leading to this dialog:

"We must have real power to enforce decisions!" --- said ArbCom

"So enforcement of our decisions is no longer subject to review, except by us!"--- they concluded

As you can see, the robs the community of administrators of the important power to check one another's blocks. This decision puts this power in the hands of a few overworked ArbCom members. This is a radical expansion of ArbCom's power, and who decided on this? ArbCom itself! Since when is ArbCom allowed to expand its powers unilaterally?

One consequence of this expansion of power is that there is no proper venue for asking to be unblocked regarding ArbCom enforcement (per Durova).

I will suggest a guiding principle: NO BLOCKING POWER WITHOUT UNBLOCKING POWER. If ordinary administrators can block, it must also be possible for ordinary administrators to unblock. If you have to worry about someone unblocking you, you will be a lot more careful. You might even take longer than 12 minutes.

What is prevented by this is the ability to act without possibility of peer review. This is what makes Trusilver's actions praiseworthy. ArbCom should admit: We goofed, or administrators should take back their power.

administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except * with the written authorization of the Committee, or * following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so

Does ArbCom have the ability to pass this motion, which increases its own power?
SirFozzie's question--- "Symbolic or not?"
Is it desired by a consensus of Administrators?
Is it desired by a consensus of editors?
Does it benefit the operation of the encyclopedia?

I think this is the root evil. Redacting this is good for everyone, especially for ArbCom, which is already overworked.

Comment by Awickert

This whole thing is silly, but potentially very damaging, and should go away. A few specific points:

WP:AGF is a key principle here. It is clear to me that Brews did not know that he was acting in violation of his topic ban (the namespace was wrong, but the comments were unrelated). It would have been better overall to warn him and give him the chance to take steps to fix things, instead of just blocking him for a week, causing lots of dramahz and keeping him from improving articles, which he does well and prolifically.
It has been repeatedly stated that there was no broad consensus for an unblock. There was unanimous community consensus against a block in the first place. Though Brews was technically in violation of his ban (per the namespace), I don't think that the action taken was appropriate (nothing against you, Sandstein: divergence of opinion).
Most importantly: This is a hairy and uncomfortable situation in which (a) arbcomm non-overruling rules are on one side, and (b) a whole bunch of folks finding the block unfair and/or detrimental to the writing of an encyclopedia on the other. The best solution IMO is to let this one slide with the explicit note that arbcomm will pay perfect attention next time something like this comes up so that it will be handled in a way that doesn't create controversy. Any other action will create winners, losers, and bitterness: 3 things that I don't want to see here. Awickert (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tznkai

I am racing real life deadlines and losing so I only have enough time to make a brief statement for at least 12 hours or so.

The discretionary sanctions I placed on Brews ohare were never intended to be long term, but to be reviewed periodically. I had in fact been considering proposing lifting some of the discretionary sanctions, but Brews ohare did not seem overly interested when I brought up the topic with him in January [19], and there was some other drama, on wiki and off, at that time, so it never came up again. The sanctions were meant to be both self-perpetuating and temporary, and I made a drafting error that didn't make it clear what the "default" state was, leading to this unfortunate confusion. I apologize.

It is my understanding that Brews, if he wishes for the discretionary sanctions to be reviewed (and possibly lifted) he can and should start the process himself at any time he's comfortable with it, or that it should be done anyway just because the sanction itself indicates that it is self-reviewing. I have not had the opportunity to review the current incident in detail, nor the last 2 months or so of Brews' editing history, so I can't comment on it yet. If I can, I will comment sooner, but it will probably have to wait until late tonight, EST.

Overall however, when I made those sanctions my intent was to create less drama, not more, so I encourage everyone to look in that direction for solutions.

I have a few brief observations. AE, like administration in general only functions when the administrators work together with each other. That means we need to give and take, discuss, not demand. Don't be stubborn, and do not, do not invoke IAR. We are supposed to be working together. This of course applies to administrators, who should be doing their best to set an example, but it also applies to everyone who decides to jump in. It helps no one to needlessly antagonize or make broad rhetorical gestures. Arbitration is a blunt instrument and there isn't much it can do other than give people soapboxes for being ridiculous and point fingers at each other over things that don't really matter all that much. Brews is an excellent contributor, but it isn't always enough. You also need to be able to avoid causing trouble. It wouldn't be fair to blame this particular incident on him, but the way he's responded to the situation makes me a bit wary. My suggestion is for Sandestein and Trusilver to both apologize to eachother (if you can't think of a reason to apologize, make one up ) and Brews ask on AE for a review of his additional sanctions when he feels he's ready to prove that they are unnecessary.

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

I find it hugely ironic that every person who attempts to help Brews ends up being attacked like a enemy of the state. Trusilver does what everyone on this fucking group doesn't.....He discussed his reasons, clearly, calmly and invoked several prinicpals to explain himself. Is there something wrong with a admin explaining themselves? Trying to get honest answers from here is like looking for a honest man in congress, it ain't going to happen. My question I keep asking and not once get a answer to is how long will the Arbcom assume bad faith with everything that Brews or his supporters do? This is a witch hunt, nothing more then that, you see a admin that used reason instead of blindly following the Rank and File and you see the argumentum ad hominem attacks begin. For proof you can look at Mathsci comment above, he uses the fallacy because we stand in a small group we are somehow less then the other editors here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To all: I have to agree with Finell in utter sincerity. I'm tired of the same arguments too. However there is clear disagreement here. Several Editors agree with Brews, several agree with Arbcom. How many times will we keep coming here over issues regarding this? I'm sure that Brews supporters will not cease in the clamor, nor the supporters for the continuance of sanctions. When will it stop, when will people from each group assume good faith about each other? Truthfully the same group of editors come to hurl brews down as the ones that come to defend him., we at a impasse. Sometimes in history it has been nec. to compromise and find a way to work with others, just for the sake of peace. There has definitely frivolous blocks over this topic ban and no one seems to be willing ot back down. How has this action prevented disruption? If anything it has caused more because of the lack of agreement in this case. Who will be the first to let the past go and let a new reality take place? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Headbomb

That 3RR thread is very clearly physics related (Brews is topic banned from ALL physics related discussion, by ARBCOM) and very clearly in the Wikipedia namespace (from which Brews is banned, by Tznkai). At the very top of the page you see "infraparticle", and the participants in that thread, prior to Brews are Likebox, Micheal C Price, Count Iblis, and myself, which were all involved in the original SoL case (either through Speed of Light or following amendment caused by Brews' participation in the WP namespace, such as WP:ESCA). Brews commenting in that thread is an act of particular cluelessness considering its scope and its participant. It's a clear cut violation of his original topic ban (which is what I care here), its following amendment by Tznkai (which is still active, even thought it may not be needed [I'm not convinced of that, but that's not my call]).

And concerning the general idea that admins can overturn ARBCOM because they feel like it, that's about the worse idea possible, and the fastest road to chaos and wheel warring. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And because Likebox and Tombe won't ever get tired of repeating that I make frivolous request, Likebox's block request was made because I interpreted his comments to mean that he willfully and deceptively sourced infraparticle (see this comment "I am very proud of my blocks. The "sourcing" of infraparticle was a joke--- none of the references provided at all touch the subject in the article [...] At the moment, the opponents can be distracted by smoke and mirrors."). Making a block request after a known edit warrer, who's proud of his blocks, says something like this, is certainly not a frivolous request. (In the end, the sourcing issue turned out to be a misunderstanding. But that, of course, was impossible to know at the time I made the request.)

Likewise Tombe is banned from physics related discussion, much like Brews is. So Tombe commenting on the infraparticle article also falls in the scope of his topic ban IMO. And I did say in Tombe's ARBCOM/Enforcement's request upon further review, it is true that David hasn't commented directly on the content. While it's way too close to the fringes of his ban to my liking, especially with his accusations of cowardice, I won't push this. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least Brews should be reblocked/unblocked so a note appears in the block log saying that the unblock from Trusilver was inappropriate, and that the original block was appropriate. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Finell

I apologize for not being my usual verbose self, but I'm really, really tired of going through the same arguments by the same characters over, over, and over again. I'm also tired of seeing IAR invoked so freely anytime somebody disagrees with some action or policy.

I agree with Headbomb's comments. Brews was not really the cause of this drama. Rather, he was collateral damage from Likebox playing games with the rest of us who were insisting on sources for unsourced content in Infraparticle. First, Likebox purported to provide sources that we accepted in good faith, then he bragged on Jimbo's talk page that he had fooled us into accepting his sources ("distracted by smoke and mirrors", quoted with diff by Headbomb above), then he was justifiably blocked, and then he somehow managed to persuade an administrator that the blocking administrator, and the rest of us, misunderstood his remarks about how he fooled us.

But I am spending far too much my time in arguments with or about Wikipedians who utterly disregard Wikipedia's policies and processes, and then complain when they or their allies get sanctioned. I've stood up for Brews several times in the past few months, but he keeps managing to inject himself into disputes unnecessarily. I've had it, and I don't just mean with Brews.—Finell 20:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

This may be one of the rare situations where amnesty really is appropriate. The Arbitration Enforcement board instructions have an important omission: they do not state where appeals of AE decisions may be made (the instructions only specify when appeals of other things may be submitted to AE, which is difficult to parse). Also there's no clear statement in any readily accessible place of which arbitration-related actions the community may review. This led to a lot of confusion. We don't want proposals like this to move forward or situations like this to recur. So the best solution would be to determine whether the discretionary sanction on Brews Ohare was applied appropriately, with amnesty toward both acting administrators. Then revise project space to clarify the appropriate scope and means of community-based AE appeals. Durova⁴¹² 19:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In followup to Jehochman and in fairness to Trusilver, the outcome of the appeal at ANI was a procedural close which I implemented based upon an imperfect recollection of the SlimVirgin desysop. Mea culpa for that share of the confusion. So without endorsing Trusilver's use of the IAR policy, it's possible to excuse it. SlimVirgin was cautioned in four prior arbitration cases before receiving a six month desysop. It wouldn't be appropriate to apply that solution mechanically to Trusilver. Stating this without any opinion on the merits of Brews Ohare's appeal. Durova⁴¹² 00:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Jehochman's assertion "The bold text SirFozzie quotes below has been added prominently to the top of WP:AE", this is incorrect. That text is nowhere on the arbitration enforcement page. Durova⁴¹² 04:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Jehochman, this is weird: a cut and paste search for that text on the page didn't turn it up (and I wasn't the only one who searched for a statement about appeals venue without success). Would you agree that an editor instruction section on how to appeal decisions of this board would be a good idea? Durova⁴¹² 18:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

Wikilawyering should be discouraged. Brews has been testing the limits of their sanctions multiple times. If Brews had complied with the letter and the spirit, and had ceased the battleground behavior, they probably could have gotten the sanctions lifted some time ago. Regrettably, a number of "friends" have encouraged and supported a continued pattern of disruptive editing. This is regrettable, and should be dealt with somehow. I have no idea why Trusilver didn't get an agreement with Sandstein before undoing the block. Durova is right that the process is not perfectly documented, so an appeal lodged in the wrong place could have been acted on nonetheless, but I disagree with the idea that people should be let off the hook. An appeal was made, and the outcome was not what Trusilver wanted, but Trusilver acted anyways stating "per ignore all rules". That's bogus because "per WP:IAR" is not a magic phrase that allows an admin to do whatever they please whenever they like. If Trusilver fails to promptly recognize their error and undertake never to repeat it, they should face the usual sanction: loss of adminship. Jehochman ^Brrr 20:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS: I am in favor of granting a second chance iff Trusilver confirms that they will strictly abide by the relevant policies regarding arbitration enforcement actions. We are not forcing any apologies; we are forcing an acknowledgement that policy has been understood and will be followed. Jehochman ^Brrr 02:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Durova, times have changes since the SlimVirgin case you reference. The bold text SirFozzie quotes below has been added prominently to the top of WP:AE, and announcements were made to the community that arbitration enforcement actions are not to be overturned by an individual administrator acting on their own belief. Perhaps Trusilver has no knowledge of these changes; I've never seen them at WP:AE before. For that reason I am willing to give a second chance if they acknowledge the policy and promise to follow it. Asking somebody to acknowledge and follow what they are already bound to is hardly an onerous condition. Jehochman ^Brrr 02:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the text is there. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header, the paragraph titled Administrator information. It was added by Elonka in 2008.[20] Presumably an administrator would read the instructions before wading in. (Feel free to remove this meta comment when it is no longer needed.) Jehochman ^Brrr 04:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Tznkai, do you really think it's excusable for an administrator to refer to their peers as a bunch of bottom-feeding wannabe politicians? I think not. That matter needs to be corrected, and additionally you ought not demand or even suggest apologies. If somebody wants to apologize, they will. Don't press them. Jehochman ^Brrr 03:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PBS

I am administrator who has only recently become aware of this saga, and my only interest in it is the implications of administrative wheel warring.

I agree with, User:Mathsci, User:Pieter Kuiper's second comment, and User:Snowded. I also agree with most of what user:Jehochman has said, but I disagree with Jehochman 's last sentence (see below).

Awickert commented above "It is clear to me that Brews did not know that he was acting in violation of his topic ban (the namespace was wrong, but the comments were unrelated)", In my opinion the wording of the restriction is clear (and in Awickert's next paragraph Awickert makes it clear that he/she understands that there was and is such a restriction). Therefore on balance I think that User:Sandstein's initial actions were appropriate.

Once Brews ohare's had requested an unblock, I do think that it is unfortunate that there was no timely response by another administrator, if only to explain the Arbcomb ruling that binds administrators, and if they thought necessary to take the issue of User:Sandstein's actions up at AN or ANI and to inform Brews ohare that they had done so.

The reason for the implementation of sanctions is not to punish but to persuade editors to conform to the agreed consensus, (the consensus involves more than just the specific opinions of editors contribute to a conversational topic, weight must be given to Arbcomb decisions, policy pages and guidelines etc) and as far as I am aware there is no consensus against the Arbcom ruling as highlighted by SirFozzie below, so as I as an administrator think I am bound by Arbcomb decision and I would not intentionally revert an another administrators actions which were done under the auspices of that decision.

But in this case I think user:Trusilver acted in good faith and no good for the project would come from either unilateral removal of adminship or asking user:Trusilver to admit to a mistake. So I suggest that the ArbCom scolds user:Trusilver and leave it at that. Of course if user:Trusilver repeats the action that lead to him/her being brought here, then there should be no second chance.

-- PBS (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by JzG

There are acceptable ways of contesting arbitration sanctions, wheel warring over blocks is not one of them. This entire episode appears to have been hijacked from the very outset by people who never accepted the original case findings. Some of these seem to be focusing on their personal belief that Brews is right and ignoring the fact that what he was sanctioned for was disruption, not being wrong. They also believe that because he is (in their opinion) right, he should be at liberty to continually test the limits of the remedies applied. No, sorry, it doesn't work that way.

This is not, and never has been, about right vs. wrong, it's a user conduct issue. The user appears to have had serious difficulty accepting the restrictions (because he knows he's "right") and has tested them from the outset resulting in more drama at every turn from those who also don't accept the outcome because he's "right". Incidentally, I have no opinion on whether he is right or wrong.

Why is this case being requested? In November 2008, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion which stated that administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except * with the written authorization of the Committee, or * following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so, like SirFozzie said. Nothing to do with Brews being right or wrong or the restriction having the right kind of shrubbery, it's a bog standard "don't wheel-war over arbitration enforcement" issue. That principle is designed to reduce drama. What do we have when it's violated? Drama. And now the original parties who supported Brews because he's "right" are asserting on Jimbo's talk page that this is a constitutional crisis, that ArbCom are corrupt, that we are akin to the Inquisition, that we have a witch-hunt, lunacy, abuse of process (ironic given the out of process unblock that triggered this request), cronyism and so on. All the ingredients of calm discourse - not.

~~This is, in other words, an outstanding example of people completely missing the point and making a lot of noise about it. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Please read Trusilver's comment on his talk page, I think he is right: there was ambiguity over the scope and enforcement provisions on Brews. That needs fixing. I would suggest that the comment now on user talk:Trusilver is a recognition of the problem with the unblock and places the unblock in a reasonable context as a defensible action in good faith. Importantly, I am convinced that Trusilver is extremely unlikely to repeat this, and has correctly identified a problem albeit his way of fixing it was wrong because of considerations wider than this specific case, something I think Trusilver now understands better than before. I think a sanction at this point would be punitive and a shame. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gwen Gale

I got an email from Brews ohare after the block and looked into it. I told Brews (in so many words) I thought he'd grazed up against the arbcom sanction and that it looked to me like he had been testing the edges, but that I was also willing to believe he'd made a good faith mistake. I told him the sanction was meant to be very broad, that he could likely be unblocked if he acknowledged such a mistake, that he now understood and wouldn't do that again (I also recall saying there would be no need for him to say he was sorry or anything like that). He answered (very politely) that he would rather sit out the block. Given the unblock request stayed open for six days out of the seven day block, I don't think the unblock, coming as it did on the last day before the block would have lifted itself, did much harm to the project. Nonetheless I do think the block was supported by both policy and the background on this (even if Brews didn't mean to do anything untowards), that Brews could have easily and quickly gotten himself unblocked, but that unblocking Brews without at least some kind of acknowledgement from Brews and checking with the blocking admin, was likewise unsupported. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Physchim62

Sandstein and Trusilver should be required to resolve their differences by the traditional method of "trouts at dawn". Really, it's sad to see that the least consequential disputes are the ones that create the most wikidrama. Obviously, Brews is not innocent in the drama, nor in its escalation: none of this would have happened if the Committee had passed the appropriate remedy to the Speed of light case, that is a one-year site ban for this persistently and deliberately disruptive editor. Physchim62 (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Fences and windows

Taking an admin to ArbCom for unblocking half a day before the end of a week-long block looks like overkill to me. There isn't total agreement that the edits that lead to the block did firmly fall under the ArbCom restrictions on the blocked editor, and this case has the appearance of Sandstein taking revenge for another admin disagreeing with their actions. Arguing over the remaining six hours of the block is a waste of time, and discussion with Trusilver could have resolved this.

Comment by JohnBlackburne

This is to those who think that Trusilver's action was supported by consensus, or a majority view, or was unopposed. The reason why I suspect many editors (though I'm only speaking for myself) were not active on Brews' talk page opposing his unblock is we are tired of all this. Tired of the same editors disputing the same arbitration case again and again. Tired of being labelled corrupt[21], evil[22], or lectured on Victor Hugo[23] (though that is more comical than anything) for not supporting their special viewpoint, or just being forced to refute the same flawed arguments over and over again.

Most of us have better things to do then participate here. So having driven most sane editors away please don't think that means the few editors left on places like Brews talk page or even here are suddenly representative of the community. They are not.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Hans Adler

This case demonstrates the fact that the prohibition against undoing AE actions is not entirely consistent with the general spirit of our community practices. WP:IAR is of course in tension with many of our other rules (that's its purpose), but exceptionally strongly with this one. For me the main issues here are:

Balance of power between Arbcom and the admins. Arbcom is not always right. This was more obvious in 2008 and may become more obvious again.
Fairness of process. For this community to function well, it is essential that respected members can occasionally break rules when they feel that the trade-off between their own loss of reputation and the expected benefits to the encyclopedia is worth it. Among other things, this can help to prevent gaming through overly literal and Draconian rule interpretations and abuse of the fact that every admin has a de facto veto right against not blocking a user.

I hope that Arbcom will find the right balance between the conflicting values. Arbcom decisions need to be binding under normal circumstances. But a single admin's interpretation of an Arbcom decision cannot currently be binding under controversial circumstances. This is a corollary of the fact that we are a wiki community. Perhaps you can change this – slowly and diplomatically. Hans Adler 08:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Enric Naval

Guys... just a) make a motion saying that admins shouldn't undo AE blocks b) refuse to make an additional entry in Brew's log due to special circumstances unrelated to point a. These two things are not contradictory. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Profstandwellback

I comment as a user of WP who accidentally came across this dispute through interest in physics. I wish to point out that : 1) it is very difficult to judge what has happened since the evidence is hard to retrieve and is not summarised anywhere. I suggest there should be a format for a judicial review available in the talk page. 2) I notice that new comers to "speed of light" for example, are raising the same kind of questions about the article, and there is no way they will find a report of the dispute except for talk comments of the "oh no not this issue again" kind. Hence my suggestion above. 3) Surely the talk pages are for this kind of discussion about content, without threat of bans, surely that is what freedom of speech is all about, i.e the freedom to offend and have a debate in the open? 4 March 2010 (UTC) 4) Personally I find it not helpful as a teaching aid that articles jump in at the deep end without a more gentle introduction so that people who want to learn can find their current level of understanding and then read on. Profstandwellback (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Collect

Tzinkai's statement makes quite clear that this objection has little, if any, merit. Trusilver clearly acted in good faith, and within normal admin leeway.

Calling this use of reasonable discretion "obstruction" is not helpful, and is not something I would presume the ArbCom wishes to waste time on.

The other comments, however, seem to seek to reopen the entire Brews ohare case. I posit that the material at hand for so doing is quite absent - the only real issue presented is the case against Trusilver, and that, I submit, is grossly deficient to warrant any ArbCom actions. I would, moreover, urge ArbCom to state forthrightly that Sandstein, Brews, and Trusilver should earnestly avoid contact about this in the future, and that Sandstein should be highly careful not to appear to act in anything other than a properly dispassionate manner. And, as always, ot os clear that Draconian actions clearly do not serve WP in the long term. Collect (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Stifle

The motion appears to me to be in the nature of making an example of Trusilver. May I refer you to the immortal quote "THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN HERE" from Star Trek: First Contact — that was what came to mind when I read the motion. If that's what the ArbCom wants to do, it's not up to me to stop you, but may I suggest you consider a time-bounded desysop instead as an equally effective but less drastic method of getting the message across that AE blocks are not to be interfered with lightly? Stifle (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by AGK

Desysopping Trusilver would be beyond harsh. I say that as an administrator who has previously worked in arbitration enforcement, and who knows the value of restricting the ease with which AE actions can be overturned. AGK 01:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by DesertAngel

I haven't edited in a long time, so I'm sorry and please delete this message if it isn't appropriate. And I'm sure I'm not really that unbiased because User:Trusilver is my father. But i have been following this whole thing and it makes less sense the more i read it. There have been a bunch of people that repeatedly say that the block which led to this whole thing was wrong, yet other than saying so, nobody is interested in looking at that block, but only on how the unblock was handled. I have thought from the very beginning that wikipedia was made on the idea of a loose rule system so that the rules don't get in the way of writing an encyclopedia. But what i have read the last couple days seems to be the exact opposite. If i were in charge, i think i would be a little bit more quick to forgive people that do the wrong things for the right kinds of reasons, or at least spend a little more time thinking about what was done wrong by the other guy. DesertAngel 03:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Comment by Martinp

Guys, given how the discussion is going, is it really appropriate to be dealing with this by summary motion? I'm not sure if norms for this have ever been established, but it strikes me that summary motion is most useful in situations where either i) there is urgency, or ii) the circumstances are not in dispute and there is no reason to waste time in running a full case. Now I don't want to wish ongoing painful arbitration on anyone, but here we have significant debate about whether elements of the backstory (and actions by others) are relevant or not, we have respected arbitrators reaching drastically different conclusions about the appropriate remedy with thoughtful commentary, and several arbitrators flipping back and forth between support and oppose of the summary motion. This seems to me like exactly the type of situation, if it needs to go to arbitration at all, that would benefit from a nuanced discussion on the workshop page, followed by a clear set of relevant principles, findings of fact, and remedies. At the moment, the whole mess sounds a bit like the plot of a Wild West movie (except I'm not sure anyone is wearing black hats), summary motion conclusion included. Martinp (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Could a clerk please notify Tznkai of this RFAR, both by message to his talk page and via email? Thanks. Risker (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai notifed both on talk page and by email. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request from uninvolved editor: while I appreciate that one of the parties may find a need to ignore the word limit up to a point, could a clerk please address those other editors who have unreasonably gone over it? Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed by Ryan Postlethwaite. [24] [25] [26]

I am recused. AGK 17:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Awaiting statement from Trusilver. I don't think an entire case is necessary here; anything that we need to do we should be able to do by motion. Steve Smith (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Symbolic or not, there is a line at the top of AE that states: In November 2008, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion which stated that administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except * with the written authorization of the Committee, or * following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so. In light of this, I find the argument of IAR uncompelling, to say the least. IAR is only supposed to be used when a rule is stupid and there's consensus that it is not needed, IAR is to prevent drama, not to cause it. Trusilver not only did not seek either , he was given multiple chances to correct the action and did not, which I find intensely disappointing. I agree that a full case is unnecessary, and have ideas for motions. SirFozzie (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, I have now posted a motion below on this issue. SirFozzie (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly not going to make gestures in the direction of restoring a handful of hours from a week-long block as this would be an exercise in futility. That being said, the unblock by Truesilver is a patently ridiculous and political invocation of IAR. Gathering support and barnstars does not improve the encyclopedia, nor does unilaterally undoing a block hours before it expires "on principle". Administrative tools are emphatically not to be used to make political statements — there are plenty of mechanisms to appeal the substance or propriety of an enforcement action but IAR is not one of them. — Coren ^(talk) 11:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brews, I did not address the substance of your block for the simple reason that it is not material to this request, which is about how the unblock came about. — Coren ^(talk) 23:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, Sandstein's block of Brews Ohare is based on the extension of sanctions carried out by Tznkai in November 2009, reviewed in December 2009, and which was scheduled to be reviewed again four weeks from December 10, 2009 (or approximately Jan 8/2010). I do not see any documentation that the planned January 2010 review took place or (if it did) what its result was. I'd like to hear from Tznkai about this, if he is available, and will ask a clerk to contact him. While I don't want to presuppose the situation, it looks right now as though we have a good-faith block made on the basis of an extension to an Arbcom remedy that was not intended to be long-term, putting everyone in something of an awkward situation. Risker (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think restoring the block would accomplish anything at this time, but this is not an indication that Sandstein's block was improper in any way. Trusilver's explanation leaves a lot to be desired; Wikipedia doesn't run by what individual's think is "the right thing to do" and I'm not convinced IAR applies since I fail to see how the project was improved by this political maneuvering. Trusilver's reluctance to remedy the situation despite multiple chances is truly disappointing. Brews is certainly aware by now how to contest any sanction, restriction or block considering how frequently he's done so (or had it done for him). I also believe that this can be handled by simple motion; the facts seem self-evident. Shell ^babelfish 19:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Brews, just in case you missed it, please see the large chunk of bold text SirFozzie posted; that should clear up your confusion about why Trusilver's actions were improper. Shell ^babelfish 20:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be clear at this point that those who undue AE actions unilaterally, without our authorization or a community consensus, do so at their own peril. I am not sure how much more clear we can make it. I agree this can be handled by motion. KnightLago (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, every Wikipedia editor got principles. Unilateral and decisive actions based on personal principles have never been nor should become a Wikipedia principle. We wouldn't have this case presented here if we could have acted in a different way; that is to consult first and act accordingly. You disagree with an AE block? Don't unblock. There are many other ways to contest it apart from unblocking with the justification that "I got my principles guiding me." IAR is tricky. The blocking admin could also claim they are applying it regardless of the AE discussions. For the rest, I am in total agreement with SirFozzie, Coren, Shell and KnightLago. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trusilver/Brews ohare unblock Motion

The unblock of User:Brews ohare by User:Trusilver was done without the explicit written consent of the Arbitration Committee, or a full and active community discussion as required. The Arbitration Committee explicitly rejects Trusilver's defense of WP:IAR in this situation. However, since the block has since expired, it will not be reapplied. For misuse of his administrator tools, User:Trusilver's administrator rights are revoked. He may regain them through a new WP:RfA or through a request to the Arbitration Committee.

(There being 16 arbitrators, two of whom are inactive, the majority is 8) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Updated by Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator voting and discussion

Support

I would like to note that while we give administrators a good amount of leeway on how they enforce ArbCom's remedies at AE and elsewhere, they are still required to discuss their actions as needed, and if consensus is against the action taken, gracefully consent to having the action overturned. But that consensus needs to be that of the community, not that of highly charged partisans on a user's talk page. SirFozzie (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, it needs to be noted that a good faith enforcement block needs an active consensus to undo. To do otherwise both diminishes the ability of remedies to be enforced and encourages an attitude of warring between disagreeing administrators which, in the best case, is begging for a wheel war. If one feels strongly that an enforcement action was unfair, in bad faith, or simply erroneous and it was not possible to discuss the matter satisfactorily with the enforcing admin, then the proper action is to either (a) raise community consensus in a suitable venue or (b) raise the matter directly with the committee. Simply reversing the action unilaterally is never acceptable. — Coren ^(talk) 21:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this principle might not be entirely clear, so I will restate it: Unilaterally undoing an enforcement action is never appropriate. Even if, in your opinion, it was a "bad block". — Coren ^(talk) 23:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rules either mean something or they do not; I cast my vote for the former approach. Steve Smith (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is admirable (really): refusing to adhere to the rules when they go against one's conscience is noble and commendable. My vote at this point is not punishment, but rather an acknowledgement that Trusilver's scruples are not consistent with the expectations of an administrator, and that he is too principled to suppress his principles for the sake of retaining the bit. Steve Smith (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per SirFozzie, who sums up my thoughts nicely. KnightLago (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While there is always room for good faith disagreements about enforcement, concerns should be handled with discussion, not unilateral unblocks or other sanction removal. Shell ^babelfish 20:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above, and also noting that the recent comments made by Trusilver (see the Meta comments section below) are not helping him in the slightest; incivility aside, they're not convincing me that this is going to be a one-time incident that won't be repeated again, despite the apparent commitment he's made. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What Coren said. - Mailer Diablo 21:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a difficult vote. I completely agree with Newyorkbrad below... while Trusilver's unblock was based on a personal principle, the rest of Trusilver's administrative actions have never been questionable. I could have just stopped at this point and opposed this motion. However, the problem is that their first meta comment below shows that they agree somehow that they wouldn't do it again while their second one makes me believe that they are like "I'll do it again, so what?!". That is inconsistent and unclear. Therefore I am supporting this motion unless Trusilver clarifies his position in a different way. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Quick change of heart. Cool Hand Luke 02:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

I am wavering yet again. I cannot support this unless we pass a second motion to clarify that AE admining is not a license to kill. There must be an established review mechanism, and we should say something about best practices. Cool Hand Luke 18:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per above. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 06:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per my colleagues. Roger Davies ^talk 09:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Trusilver's unblock arguably violated our resolution of December 2008, and despite some mitigating factors as discussed in the editor comments above, an admonition against his doing this sort of thing again might be in order so as to preserve good order in the arbitration enforcement process (AE being an important part of the arbitration process as well as an important but entirely thankless and historically burnout-prone role for administrators). Under all the circumstances, however, I feel that desysopping Trusilver for what appears to have been a completely isolated incident is a seriously excessive reaction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of issues going on here which mitigate against desysopping Trusilver. First is that it is pretty clear that the edits that resulted in the block were not physics-related, but straightforward (and fairly sound) editorial advice, so I do not see them as violating the topic ban that was instituted by the Arbitration Committee. They arguably violate the sanctions superimposed on Brews by Tznkai; however, I do not believe that sanctions based on such superimposed sanctions (done by an individual administrator rather than the full Arbitration Committee) are protected in the same way that the base decision is protected. That is why we can amend decisions, to broaden or limit the original sanction; an administrator could impose entirely different terms than the original decision without anyone ascertaining whether it was the intention of the Arbitration Committee to head in that direction. Next is the length of the block; it is the maximum allowable under the Arbcom decision. I am not persuaded that such a lengthy block was appropriate for this transgression. There was a teachable moment there, where Sandstein could have identified what reassurances he needed to lift the block, but I cannot see any indication that Sandstein gave any consideration to conditions under which he would change the block length should Brews indicate an understanding of his limitations and an agreement to follow them more closely. Brews is not banned from the project as a whole, but limited areas of the project; this is intentional on the part of the Arbitration Committee, and there is some expectation that efforts will be made to resocialise him to the project. This is not always an easy process, but it is a valuable one; I say this despite some failed efforts on my own part, because when it works it is very rewarding to the project as well as the editors involved.
Also of note is the fact that the effort to appeal the decision on ANI, while probably appropriate, was stymied by an editor who closed the discussion. I don't fault Durova for this, because she is correct that the Arbitration Committee's instructions on how to appeal an arbitration enforcement decision to the community is not clearly spelled out. Thus, those seeking review of the block took it to the largest community noticeboard, logically thinking that was where they were most likely to get community feedback; on the other hand, those who frequent ANI also logically thought the discussion, since it related to arbitration enforcement, did not belong there. I think it appropriate to have some discussion with the community about where future such discussions should take place, because there are definitely not enough eyes on WP:AE to hold it there; perhaps Administrator noticeboard would be best.
All in all, what I see is a too-long block from an administrator who would not lay out conditions under which he would consider unblock, a truncated attempt to have community review of the block, and the main reason being given to support the block being that it was made as an arbitration enforcement so is sacrosanct. I don't see this as having reached the desysop point; I could probably agree with a formal warning, but at this point I think Trusilver has got the message. I don't think it is beneficial to the community as a whole, or the Arbitration Committee as an extension, to instantly go to the highest level of possible sanction whenever someone violates a policy, particularly when the exact nature of the violation rests on somewhat shaky grounds. Risker (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker and JzG (who has been in dialog with Trusilver with Coren) convince me to oppose. I will support a warning. I understand that some arbitrators want this closed, but I hope it remains open a little longer so that we can post post (1) an alternative warning motion, and (2) a motion pledging to tackle the ambiguity of the AE process, if not clarifying the process once and for all. Cool Hand Luke 19:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

I don't think these sanction events were best practices for AE; I'm especially uneasy about the repeated block while this case was pending. I would support only if the AE practices are addressed and rationalized. I will not stand in the way of passage, however. Cool Hand Luke 02:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Nevermind, move to support. I would like to address AE someday, but this case is too clear-cut to be worth holding. Cool Hand Luke 02:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meta Comments

Being just a couple votes short of a de-sysopping, now is a good time to point out that Trusilver may be able to stop this right here by clearly stating that they will never do such a thing again. It is not burdensome to reaffirm existing obligations. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I reaffirm my position that Sandstein's original block was incorrect and had nothing whatsoever to do with the sanction as he claimed in his block message, I have no problem with that. I wouldn't do it again within the stated parameters and with the understanding that arbcom sanction blocks are clearly labled as such beforehand. Trusilver 16:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I didn't know that this was an arbitration enforcement block, or else I wouldn't have removed it without discussion and consensus" may be a valid defense. "Ignore all rules" definitely isn't. Do you now agree with those two statements? Jehochman ^Brrr 16:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nice little arbcom sycophant's comments below notwithstanding. I'm going to have to say no. If the block was labeled with the new template, I wouldn't have unblocked on the basis of a more clear and accessible set of directions for appealing the block. But I'm not about to lie about it. If I had it to do all over again, and all circumstances remain as they were, I wouldn't have done anything differently. A bad block remains a bad block even if the overzealous blocking admin tries to pretend that it somehow applied to an existing sanction. I have nothing further to add. Trusilver 18:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically in response to FayssaIF, I don't know if this is exactly the clarification you are looking for, but I think I have answered your question here in my response to JzG. Trusilver 01:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a personal attack. I think it's inappropriate and especially imprudent under these circumstances. Cool Hand Luke 02:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More inappropriate than Sandstein's passive-aggressive covert incivility? Like where he suggests it's "strange" that I honor[27] an editor who has contributed more content to the encyclopedia than both him and I will ever hope to? I don't think so, but I'm sure your mileage may vary. Trusilver 06:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I categorically believe that it's much more uncivil to refer to a user as "nice little arbcom sycophant" than question an editor's comment as "strange." Not even close. Cool Hand Luke 18:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerks, feel free to remove this section if it's inappropriate, but I would like to point out that the AE block was clearly labeled as such (block log, talk page, Trusilver's talk). Also, some of Trusilver's recent comments in this matter ([28], [29], [30]) make me doubt the sincerity of any commitment that he might want to make at this juncture. (This is strange also). Sandstein 17:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on the last part of your comment, I don't think that is strange; unless you hope to deny that ChildofMidnight has showed no promise whatsoever in his content contributions, it is unhelpful to import that dispute/case here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awarding barnstars to someone who just earned a unanimous 1-year ban seems to be a bit of a slap in the face, and referring to ArbCom as "these assholes" certainly doesn't help much either. Full disclosure; I've had an unpleasant run-in with this admin in the past, so while others may feel my opinion is biased, IMO this is a pattern of some very unsound judgment. Tarc (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Hand Luke above asks for a second motion to clarify how wider community AE review should happen... Responding to that, I think that any of the AE, the AE talk page, AN, or ANI would work - and have been used in the past. Do we need to add instruction creep, specifying one and making it the one true place? None of those is a wrong venue per se. The problem in this case was that no venue was used or attempted. Perhaps the problem here is real, but it seems not to me. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI was attempted, right here, but it was shut down in good faith because there is no process suggesting that AE can be reviewed anywhere.

With that in mind, do you agree that there should be a process for review? Cool Hand Luke 20:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent future confusion, as in Durova's closing of the ANI thread, I have attempted to describe what appears to be the review process implicitly recommended by this Committee in its 2008 motion at WP:AEBLOCK. That description has not been controversial for the last few days. Sandstein 20:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my comment - Truesilver didn't attempt participation in that or another discussion. Separately, I think Durova's close there was a mistake (not supported by arbitration sanction policy or precedent, and several such discussions have happened before). But yes, if there's confusion about the process, we should make it clear. I wasn't aware that there was confusion, and had I spotted that one would have objected. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original block was wrong. There is no doubt whatsoever about that fact. And the mess that we have here arose because of the sheer chutzpah of those who decided to completely brush that fact under the carpet and go on the warpath against Trusilver for having undone the evil. As usual, many jumped on the 'me too' bandwagon. But I knew all along that sooner or later one arbitrator would break the chain reaction, and then others would start to think. The truth is now beginning to come out in the wash. Risker has summed the situation up nicely. He maybe hasn't put it in as strong words as I would have done, but he's pretty well covered all the important facts. Risker uses the term 'shaky ground'. Very nice terminology indeed, but somewhat of an understatement. And while all this is going on, we once again witness the shameful spectacle of approaches being made to Trusilver to apologize, grovel, and confess to a crime which he did not commit. Cool Hand Luke is now talking about the very point which I raised earlier on in this affair. That is the need for a judicial review process to determine if administrators have correctly interpreted the ARBCOM sanctions, or indeed if the likes of Tznkai was intra vires in extending the ARBCOM sanctions. It is intolerable to have a situation in which one administrator can rush in and block an editor on the basis of a totally false interpretation of sanctions, and against the expressed consensus of all commenting editors. It is even worse when it is done on the back of extended sanctions which are totally ultra vires. And it is even worse still when a law exists which says that nobody is allowed to undo the evil once it's done. And it is even worse still when a situation arises that when somebody does undo the evil that he should be punished, while a blind eye is turned in relation to the originating evil. This whole situation is a total and utter monumental disgrace. Congratulations to Risker for seeing right through it.David Tombe (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She. And please don't put words in my mouth: Tznkai acted within the terms of the original decision in superimposing additional sanctions, which could have been (and still can be) appealed to the Arbitration Committee or (once everyone is on the same page) the community. "Shaky ground" refers to whether a sanction mainly based on an administrator-imposed sanction that is superimposed on an Arbitration Committee sanction is protected in the same way that a sanction strictly based on the original Arbitration Committee sanction is. It is a discussion that has not yet taken place. I have not said that Sandstein's original block was wrong, although I do believe it was too long. Risker (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK Risker, So bearing in mind the first paragraph in your 'oppose' statement', what length of block would have been appropriate in your opinion? Also Risker, your sentence

"particularly when the exact nature of the violation rests on somewhat shaky grounds"

does not seem to be in line with how you have now tried to wriggle out of it above. I may be wrong on that point, but that's how I interpret it. David Tombe (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is one very simple thing for all of us in this project to understand. If someone does something wrong (AE blocking when it is not called for) people contesting the block can easily approach ArbCom for a clarification (i.e. I don't believe that the block was right, could you please clarify to us your view on it?). That would have taken 24h to sort out. Blocking/unblocking is not right as two wrongs don't make a right. And insisting on IAR as a basis in such cases makes it more baseless. Honestly, all administrators need to know all that starting from the day they nominate themselves to RfA. And obviously, I'd not have to be uncivil and call people names as it happened in this case. So instead of doing something the easy way, we do it recklessly.

Now, and after all this mess, we've just arrived to that point; which is asking. Risker may have a different answer but if I were an admin on AE I'd first check the user's intention by asking him on his talk page and decide based on that. It could be no sanction, a warning or a 48h. In this case I could have opted for a warning. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FayssalF, Thanks for your reply. For your information, ARBCOM's opinion was indeed solicited. There are attempts being made here to make out that nobody solicited ARBCOM's opinion, but I can assure you that ARBCOM were sent for. SirFozzie arrived on scene, spoke in riddles, and departed again stating that the matter should be discussed extensively. Durova then closed the discussion thread. Plenty of discussion took place about this matter. Trusilver discussed the matter at length with Sandstein. Many editors discussed it at the original AE and the consensus was unanimously that Brews had not violated his sanctions. So let's end this canard that Trusilver didn't discuss the matter or that nobody asked ARBCOM to intervene or that no discussions took place. It's been debunked. David Tombe (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to miss the point. We have a simple principle here; do not undo blocks that were handed down to enforce an ArbCom decision/restriction. WP:IAR is like the One Ring, a powerful tool but easy to misuse. In this case, the consensus is fairly clear that it was misused, irregardless of Sandstein's original block.

Speaking of consensus, this is at 9-3-1 now, so isn't that a wrap-up? Tarc (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus among Arbitrators is not the same as consensus in the wider Wiki-Community. I'm quite sure that desysopping Trusilver would be regarded to be too harsh by most Wikipedians. Another thing is that while you can have indepth ArbCom discusions with the active participation of the Arbitrators on extremely minute procedural matters, addressing the core issue in the appeal of Brews launched by Likebox, did not lead to any useful discussions on the far more relevant issue (directly related to actually editing Wikipedia articles). Count Iblis (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each action by ArbCom doesn't require community consensus, that would somewhat defeat the point of having them at all. Thus, an absolute majority of the committee is sufficient to enact a decision. I'd also point out that you can't speak for 'most Wikipedians'. I have no opinion on the actual issue. Ale_Jrb^talk 14:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikilawyering, wikilawyering consists, among other things, of these three sorts of action:

Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles;
Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express;
Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

My reading of the arguments here is that the great majority of administrators involved are doing some or all of these things considered inimical to WP. They absolutely refuse to consider the purpose of WP or how actions affect WP. Their actions so far, do far more damage than any imagined weakening of the enforcement ability of admins, which actually is not at risk at all, unless their absurd justification of arbitrary actions leads ultimately to a complete rebellion: either withdrawal of many useful good-faith editors and abandonment of WP to such gamesters, or to an ultimate emasculation of the class of administrators itself. Brews ohare (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brews, Risker says

the edits that resulted in the block were not physics-related, but straightforward (and fairly sound) editorial advice

Yet further down, he says that the block was not wrong. It sounds to me that there must be some very strange rules on wikipedia if "sound editorial advice" can warrant a block. Something has gone off the rails somewhere. And by the way, I don't recall Trusilver at any point claiming that he invoked WP:IAR. People keep saying that he invoked WP:IAR, but I have seen no evidence of it. I thought that he just unblocked you because he thought that the block was wrong. It's interesting reading above and seeing how they can all see that Durova shouldn't have closed the discussion thread, yet they also immediately claim that they don't believe that she acted wrongly in doing so. They are very quick to brush wrongdoings by Durova under the carpet, yet punish Trusilver for right-doings. And it's interesting to see how Cool Hand Luke has clearly seen the rights and wrongs of this issue, yet he is wavering about what to actually do about it. Should he vote to spare Trusilver, now that he understands the underlying truth behind the whole situation? Or should he just follow his colleagues and vote to desysop Trusilver? It's a tough decision, isn't it? And notice how Tarc has brought us all a new meaning to the word 'consensus'. This new meaning is,

Consensus is when ARBCOM vote to overrule community consensus

Even Mark Twain couldn't have thought that one up. David Tombe (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enough already with the conspiracy theories and needless elongation of discussions. Could somebody tell me why Brews ohare and David Tombe aren't indef blocked by now? Haven't we had more than enough of this stuff? ArbCom, there was a case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light where you ought to have banned the both of them. The restrictions you placed have been tested, gamed, wikilawyered, and gamed some more. The total productive contributions of these two accounts is insufficient to justify all the community time and adverse consequences that they've created. Please take a lesson from this. Jehochman ^Talk 20:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 20:30, 11 March 2010 view source Jehochman (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 46,204 edits →‎Meta Comments: much more ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:31, 11 March 2010 view source Jehochman (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 46,204 edits →‎Meta Comments: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light Next edit →
Line 741:		Line 741:
	:Even [[Mark Twain]] couldn't have thought that one up. [[User:David Tombe\|David Tombe]] ([[User talk:David Tombe\|talk]]) 19:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)		:Even [[Mark Twain]] couldn't have thought that one up. [[User:David Tombe\|David Tombe]] ([[User talk:David Tombe\|talk]]) 19:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

	::Enough already with the [[WP:AGF\|conspiracy theories]] and [[WP:DE\|needless elongation]] of discussions. Could somebody tell me why Brews ohare and David Tombe aren't indef blocked by now? Haven't we had more than enough of this stuff? ArbCom, there was a case [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Speed of light]] where you ought to have banned the both of them. The restrictions you placed have been tested, gamed, wikilawyered, and gamed some more. The total productive contributions of these two accounts is insufficient to justify all the community time and adverse consequences that they've created. Please take a lesson from this. [[User:Jehochman\|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman\|Talk]]</sup> 20:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)		::Enough already with the [[WP:AGF\|conspiracy theories]] and [[WP:DE\|needless elongation]] of discussions. Could somebody tell me why Brews ohare and David Tombe aren't indef blocked by now? Haven't we had more than enough of this stuff? ArbCom, there was a case [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light]] where you ought to have banned the both of them. The restrictions you placed have been tested, gamed, wikilawyered, and gamed some more. The total productive contributions of these two accounts is insufficient to justify all the community time and adverse consequences that they've created. Please take a lesson from this. [[User:Jehochman\|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman\|Talk]]</sup> 20:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)