Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:29, 2 March 2010

Request name	Initiated	Votes
Disruptive behavior by user Steaphen	1 March 2010	{{{votes}}}
Trusilver's unblock of Brews ohare	1 March 2010	{{{votes}}}
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Nigam Arora\|Nigam Arora]]	28 February 2010	{{{votes}}}
Christ myth theory	23 February 2010	{{{votes}}}
Catholic Church	22 February 2010	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Aug 2024	03 Sep 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	Motion	none	26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	none	none	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Disruptive behavior by user Steaphen

Initiated by Ansgarf (talk) at 13:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Ansgarf, filing party
Steaphen

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Notice [1] provided to Steaphen

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Talk pages,
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Zeno's paradoxes
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-08-09/Zeno's Paradoxes
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-28 Zeno's Paradoxes and Geomeric series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JaimeLesMaths/Zeno%27s_Paradoxes_mediation
Most recent arbitration request initiated by Steaphen [2]

Statement by Ansgarf

I initiate this arbitration because Steaphen's behaviour makes him a disruptive editor Wikipedia:DISRUPTIVE in my opinion. Steaphen has been a Wikipedia editor since 2006, and has almost exclusively edited on Zeno's paradox, the related talk page, and pages related to mediations attempts [3][4][5][6][7]. During this time Steaphen has pushed the same point, from 2006 [8] until now [9], [10], [11]. He refuses to provide sources or respond to other editors questions [12], [13], [14], is threatening mediation and arbitration [15], [16], [17] uses the talk page as soapbox [18], [19], [20], and mocks, insults, or attacks other editors [21], [22], [23], which in the end is driving away productive editors. The above examples were just a selection of examples taken from the current talk page, and did not consider the archive, except for the first example from 2006. Of the 942 main edits on the talk page accounted here [24], 342 were by Steaphen.

Addendum: Another telling example of what I consider disruptive behaviour is this recent edit [25].

Ansgar, have you considered that your edits here could be pulling the CSE (at UNSW) into disrepute? I have fond memories of my time at that school, being as I was a student of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at that fine institution.

You might need to know that Steaphen refers to my assumed employment by the department of CSE at the University of NSW. Ansgarf (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steaphen

Overview of the dispute:

On the Zeno's Paradoxes talk page, I have, in various ways, repeatedly asked a simple question: "To what degree does calculus solve the paradoxes ... with poor-accuracy, high-accuracy or perfect accuracy?" I repeatedly suggested that if the editors could not confirm 'perfect' accuracy, then for them to include the extent to which it can be verified by present known science.

As the record shows, a compromise was agreed, with the initial agreement to read 'While more modern calculus has solved the mathematical aspects of the paradox with fair-accuracy', which was later amended, after objection by JimWae, to read '... with high-accuracy'. Ansgar subsequently and repeatedly reverted that which was agreed (to use 'high-accuracy'), without consensus. As a result I opinioned that Ansgar was being deliberately obstructive, and that if he persisted with his contentious edits that violate Wikipedian rules, arbitration should be called.

In detail:

I have been quite vocal in regards to the statements posted on the Zeno's Paradoxes pages, for a number of years. As has been stated a number of times, my purpose has been to install some discipline and rigour in the treatment of Zeno's Paradoxes. I stand by that commitment.

Historically (as far as this arbitration is concerned regarding my contributions), due to criticisms by other editors I removed all additional views of my own (which were supported by very Reliable Sources). I've since repeatedly asked that editors, including Ansgar, JimWae, Sthinks et al, include Reliable Sources confirming their views and statements.

I have repeatedly asked that good scientific/journalistic principles be followed, and while my sense of humour may offend many, at the heart of the matter is scientific and journalistic credibility and accuracy in reporting the facts, and the inclusion of Reliable Sources supporting those facts.

In contention, and the impetus for my requesting both informal and formal mediation (both of which were not responded to by mediators in due course)**, was the statement 'with calculus we may calculate where and when Achilles will overtake the tortoise" ... I repeatedly requested Reliable Sources who confirm this statement be true and valid, through all increments in physical movement. According to the Quantum Theory, that statement is demonstrably (experimentally) false ... calculus, at least that which directly applies to the problem of Zeno's Paradoxes, does not do so, and thus far there have been no Reliable Sources willing to confirm otherwise.

Kind regards,

Steaphen

Note ** - after a lengthy period of time I received notification on my talk page that a mediator was willing to handle the informal mediation case. I responded to that mediator, sending an email confirming my continued interest. No reply was received. Hence my eventual subsequent request for formal mediation.

In reply to Paul August and others who may wish to comment:

A careful review of the talk pages will reveal, admittedly sometimes dismissive replies by me that strongly call into question the blatant disregard for good journalistic/scientific principles. Let the protests from Paul August et al be noted, but nowhere have I seen inclusion of Reliable Sources supporting their speculations.

As for 'turning off' editors, well and good if those editors were seeking to push speculative opinions as fact, the act of which would undoubtedly bring this encyclopaedia into disrepute.

I agree that I am intolerant of poor editing by others. The style of my edits can be criticised with validity. No problems. But as for the substance and focus of my edits and comments -- let's hear from some competent physicists whether they believe calculus can 'solve' Zeno's Paradoxes. This has been the central issue since I began contributing.

To date, I have not encountered one physicist who will confirm that calculus provides solutions to Zeno's Paradoxes, and I've previously included statements by competent, well-known physicists who emphatically state that it doesn't.

Statement by Paul August

I am both a mathematician and lifelong student of classical antiquity and philosophy, so I have a natural interest in Zeno and his paradoxes. I have been a frequent contributer to the article — more in the past than lately — and I've been watching over that article and reading it's talk page for over five years [26]. During that time, I've been an attentive observer of Steaphen and I substantially agree with Ansgarf's statement above. I do not believe that Steaphen is making a positive contribution to the article or it's talk page. As for Steaphen's effect on other editors, I can attest that Steaphen has contributed to my turning my attentions elsewhere. Paul August ☎ 21:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Waiting for additional statements, but a case does appear plausible. Shell ^babelfish 00:07, 2 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 ([27], [28]) 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 ([29], [30]) 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]

Statement by Trusilver

First of all, I would like to thank those that agree with what I did, the show of support knocks me out. I was in awe to find the wall of barnstars above when I got to an internet connection today. For those that disagree, I respect your point of view and opinion, even if I reject it. As I said before, I didn't make this decision lightly.

The chief problem does not lie with ARBCOM, and I definitely have my issues with ARBCOM to be sure, but this isn't one of them. The problem arises where administrators, by design or by negligence, use an ARBCOM sanction in a vague manner to deliver a block without having to answer to other policies that they find momentarily inconvenient. I have no comment on Brews prior behavior that led up to his topic ban, and I really, really couldn't care less. My one and only focus in this matter was on Sandstein's block, which was, by far, the most questionable block that I have seen in a good long time. Anyone from a dispassionate, neutral point of view can clearly see that the two edits that resulted in the block were made in good faith and without the slightest clue that they would result in a block. The very idea that the block was allowed to stand for as long as it did represents the single biggest problem that Wikipedia has today: The tyranny of a ruling aristocracy that justifies its actions by the letter of the law, while completely ignoring the spirit of the law. We joke about the big and scary admin cabal, but the truth is that the cabal really DOES exist- it exists because we allow it to exist. It exists because when we see an admin decision that was clearly wrong, we do nothing. I'm guilty of it too, for this one time that I did what I should of (and what many others should have) there have been countless others that I saw and did nothing about it because I didn't want to deal with the hassle.

Somewhere along the way, we have forgotten that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We should be striving at all times to foster an environment where people are welcomed, not an environment where people are bullied until they leave. I say again, I'm not commenting on any action Brews has taken other than those that resulted in this block, but under no circumstances should this block ever have been allowed to stand. It is a travesty when we allow ourselves to hide behind the labyrinthine set of rules and bureaucracies that govern the project at the expense of losing the ability to say "lets use common sense and do the right thing", this is the very essense of the fifth pillar. I actually feel embarrassed that this is only the second time I have invoked WP:IAR in the last three years, but I cannot think of a better reason to do it than to defend the core principles by which Wikipedia was built.

This is my first and last statement on the matter, I don't feel that anything else needs to be said. I'm sure that some will rant and complain about this, and others will come to my defense (and thank you to those of you that do), but I will not argue about this or defend my position further, all I need to say has been said, and I am not a fan of never-ending exercises in intellectual masturbation that this type of debate eventually deteriorates into. I prefer to simply agree to disagree. Good day to all of you.

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]

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]

Statement by David Tombe

SirFozzie could have adjudicated but he chose not to. He passed the matter on to community consensus. Durova archived the AN/I thread and so closed down all procedural options. So why is SirFozzie complaining that Trusilver has done something illegal? And why is SirFozzie persisting with this canard that there was no community consensus to undo the block on Brews ohare? Anybody reading the arbitration enforcement action will see that Sandstein acted against a clear community consensus, never mind the fact that his actions were justified by an extreme play on words. In fact Sandstein even removed a comment by an editor that was favourable to Brews ohare and which pointed to the real cause of the problem.

As for the ARBCOM motion of November 2008, it is contrary to any kind of natural justice. It gives an unfair advantage to administrators who may wish to act mischievously. It locks the door on corrupt behaviour. It means that an administrator can interpret facts any way that he/she likes, whether rightly or wrongly, and that if he/she acts wrongly, no matter how blatantly obvious it is that he/she has acted wrongly, then nobody else is allowed to undo the wrong. The motion of November 2008 is a clear example of ARBCOM having surpassed themselves, and it lacks any credibility in the eyes of decent people. David Tombe (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Reply to Sandstein. As a man who has shown a strong desire to enforce the letter of the law, I am surprised that you have been quoting Tzntai's supplementary bans. If you read the original ARBCOM sanctions carefully, you will see that they gave Tzntai absolutely no authority whatsoever to implement any such additional sanctions in the absence of any transgressions. Tzntai implemented his supplementary bans in order to make transgressions out of the actions which he was attempting to outlaw by these very same supplementary bans. This is commonly known as moving the goal posts and it is tantamount to corruption. Meanwhile Tzntai has since left us, having had a dispute with ARBCOM. But once again, it is easy enough for you to hide behind the line that you know nothing about the legitimacy of Tzntai's supplementary sanctions and that you were only doing your job. Inspector Javert was only ever doing his job. This once again highlights the need for a complete review of the divisions of power in the system. You were acting to enforce provisions about which you had no direct knowledge, and that is the root of the problem here. David Tombe (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Coren. Coren, you say, "there are plenty of mechanisms to appeal the substance or propriety of an enforcement ". Can you name one of these mechanisms? I think alot of the problem in all of this is that nobody is really sure what the mechanisms are for appealing on principles of natural justice. David Tombe (talk) 12:28, 1 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)

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]

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 the following points ( see here):

The ban was loosened several times: first its scope was narrowed to pure physics topics(, then even that was partially lifted for the diagrams, and tznkai had proposed to lift the supplemental sanctions entirely.([31])
The violation was at 3RR board, not at any physics page, and Brews certainly was not aware that discussing the topic on 3RR board violated his ban.
The case was brought up during an edit war involving User:Headbomb at Infraparticle, a technical physics article. It involved many of the same participants as at this request, and Brews felt obligated to comment. He just didn't realize he was blocked everywhere.
Headbomb, who brought up the complaint, was at the same time issuing frivolous hit-or-miss requests for administrative actions against several editors: (against myself(myself, David Tombe). Fishing for sanctions should be sanctioned, not rewarded.

Not only did all this not influence Sandstein decision, Sandstein didn't allow anyone to inform him of anything else, because he closed and archived an active discussion! He archived it while an editor was in the middle of inserting a comment [32], only a few hours past the previous comment. This is bad behavior.

Archiving discussions prematurely disrupts the encyclopedia. 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: This enforcement action had to do with my own actions, not Brews'. I was trying to save the technical text at infraparticle from deletion by these two editors, who edit physics together, but whose literacy in this subject is minimal. Headbomb and Finell asked for sources at a very elementary level for a very advanced topic, and they got them, these sources were essentially a joke: they had no relevance to the advanced parts of the text. I was sourcing elementary background material, instead of infraparticles, because of the level of the editors' questions.

I explained this to people, and Headbomb decided that he could ban me for deceptively sourcing the article. Since he read some of the sources and knew that these were in no way deceptive, this type of activity is in extreme bad faith. I was blocked for three months at one point, until the blocking administrator reversed himself twice, unblocking me completely. The bad faith continued with a long sequence of frivolous accusations of Brews and Tombe, myself and whoever else he could pull a case together for. The only thing that stuck was the accusation against Brews, because even a stopped watch is right twice a day. But this type of behavior must end here.

To the Committee: If you don't respect individual freedom, you will end Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not based on committees, it is based on many individuals doing what they feel is right. I personally do not feel comfortable actively contributing text to this project, because of the nightmarish political situation.

I will only feel comfortable adding material to the encyclopedia on the day that Brews ohare and David Tombe are editing here again, without fear of further sanctions.Likebox (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Brews_ohare

Unless this blocking action can be shown unequivocally and with the clarity of a sonic boom to be a clear and necessary response to my sanctions, there is absolutely no case whatsoever against Trusilver.

In fact, the situation as I see it is explained in my unblock request as pasted on my User page. This unblock request is pertinent to my argument that Trusilver actually was not dealing with a violation. I do not agree with those who see some violation as having occurred. In fact, the issue of whether in fact a violation occurred has received very little attention from administrators, who have jumped immediately to the notion of a violation.

My ban refers to abstinence from "physics-related topics" and was imposed because my lengthy Talk page discussions were interpreted in terms of my being argumentative on such technical topics. To me, the reasonable interpretation of such a topic ban is that I should avoid detailed, technical discussion related to physics, or physics related topics. It does not in any way support an interpretation as abstaining from general discussion of how to write a WP article for broader audiences, nor does it sanction my providing advice to authors to cooperate. These actions are to me very clearly not physics-related, but of a general nature.

This case is brought on the narrow grounds that Trusilver overturned a block stemming from an arbcom sanction. I have argued above that no such infraction occurred.

However, let us suppose that there is not agreement with me on this analysis. Let us suppose an infraction did occur (which I repeat is not proven). If so there are several observations to consider, all indicating that Sandstein's block was presumptuous, impetuous and unnecessary:

1. The infraction was amazingly minor, consisting of some neutral and helpful advice to debating parties. It is perfectly clear that no harm was done, nor intended. Rather than let trivia slide, Sandstein adopted the argument that "So what! Any infraction, whatever its circumstances or result must be punished, and punished as severely as is possible." That view is extreme, and in my opinion is simply aimed at punishment, regardless, inasmuch as my originating motives to help settle a dispute and improve WP were of a nature to be encouraged, not punished.

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

3. Following the block, an action was initiated by Hell in a Bucket to discuss the situation. This discussion was summarily classified as an Appeal (although no motion was under review, only opinions were being formulated), and simply shut down by Durova on that basis, as being in the wrong venue. As all discussion opposed the block, this action appeared to be an attempt to shut down a discussion that might lead to a motion in the correct venue to lift the block.

4. On my talk page a discussion ensued in which everyone but a few administrators supported the block. AGK suggested that I plead guilty and prostrate myself before the court, rather than attempt to clarify the nature of the action.

In summary, no support for the block was found in any quarter outside of a few Administrators that would not examine the situation, but came to summary judgment. In my book, this opposition to the block satisfies the criterion of "clear, substantial, and active community consensus". The circumstances surrounding Sandstein's block just don't pass the sniff test: no action was necessary! Trusilver's action was in accord with the majority view of the improper imposition and severity of the block. His reasoning is well described by himself, and includes a number of other important considerations. Brews ohare (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This action against Trusilver is an entirely silly waste of time, as nothing of importance has occurred: the actions leading to the block were trivial in nature, the block has all but expired anyway, and the block was not made to enforce the objectives of my sanctions, but to impress me with the power in the hands of administrators. Trusilver has not contravened an action in response to sanctions, but overturned an improperly instituted block based upon a pretext. Brews ohare (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to SirFozzie: The situation you describe is not the present case. The drama consists in its entirety of administrators unnecessarily responding to an imagined insult to ArbCom. There is no need to rely upon application of IAR to defend Trusilver: as I have clearly outlined above using other arguments you have not considered. There is no case. The bold text you exhibit relating to actions "pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy" is not pertinent under two possible scenarios: (i) No infraction occurred, or (ii) An infraction did occur, but reversal is permissible because it meets the conditions for reversal. I have presented arguments for either scenario. Brews ohare (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Coren

Barnstars to Trusilver were not awarded by himself, obviously, and as expressions of editors' enthusiastic opinions, are not ignorable trivia either. Anyway, your remarks do not address a single issue at stake here, and simply muddy the water. Brews ohare (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coren, I am unclear as to the meaning of your statement about not considering the block, but only the unblock. If the block is unjustified, as I argue on various grounds, obviously the unblock then is justified. You cannot divorce these two matters: the merits of the block must be considered. Brews ohare (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Risker: Your assessment of the role of Tznkai in this action has now been supported by Tznkai. If a fig leaf is needed, Sandstein may now withdraw this request as an unfortunately misplaced action based upon a false presupposition about Tznkai's intentions. Sandstein may reasonably claim that he couldn't read Tznkai's mind, and acted according to his best judgment. Brews ohare (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Headbomb: The original diffs cited by you as leading to your action and forming the basis of Sandstein's block are here and here. They occur on the page WP:AN/EW, which is not ordinarily considered to be a "physics-related" page. As such, my actions did not appear to me to be "very clearly in the Wikipedia namespace" from which I am banned. Forgive me for suggesting that your desire to see this block added to the block log is only to trigger a clause placing me in peril of ban from WP for an indefinite period. All these blocks in the block log are bogus, just like this one, and you have played a part in them all. In any event, as applies to this case against Trusilver, these diffs do not support your claim of a violation of sanctions. That is, there is no case against Trusilver. Brews ohare (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Shell: I hope you can recognize that your vague assertions that "Trusilver's explanation leaves a lot to be desired." and "Wikipedia doesn't run by what individual's think is 'the right thing to do' " do not push the ball any further down the court. What is needed is a direct and specific address of the actual issues involved, reasoning directed at this case, not boilerplate. Trusilver's actions did remedy the situation as I have described it. Nothing you've said contradicts my presentation that there is no case here. Brews ohare (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Jehochman: Jehochman has attempted to discredit myself with inaccurate (I could be more caustic) assertions, and then tar Trusilver with the same brush. The present discussion should not employ the rules of debate (anything is fair in love and war) but should be held to a higher level. As already pointed out, it is not necessary to rely upon IAR as a defense here: Sandstein's block was first of all not a response to sanctions (except in his mind), was precipitous (no warning was issued, despite obvious community lack of support), and was not necessary at all (as the actions precipitating the block were minor, and actually of a positive nature). There is no case here. Brews ohare (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to PBS: PBS, you say: "The reason for the implementation of sanctions is not to punish but to persuade editors to conform to the agreed consensus". There was no attempt at persuasion in this instance, no arguments, no warning, and as there is no behavior issue, what purpose of the block was there beyond punishment, or the glory of exercising power? Or, as seems likely, just a mistake in understanding Tznkai's intentions. PBS, no-one has addressed any of the points I have raised: Why would one construe my actions as a violation of sanction? I've explained why not, but no-one discusses it. The diffs used to support this block have been linked for all to see, and they are perfectly innocuous: no violation occurred. It is a fairy tale to call these diffs a physics-related discussion and a violation. With no violation, there is no question but that Trusilver acted appropriately. Why would this block, implemented against consensus, be considered non-reversible? It appears that the criterion of wide consensus does not include disparate editors from all backgrounds; all that counts toward consensus is the hurried reaction of a few administrators too pressed to really look into the background, and inclined to rally together. Trusilver was perfectly justified on a variety of grounds to upset the block, and he deserves no lectures, but praise for the courage to defend basic core values of WP and to try to create second thoughts among other administrators. Brews ohare (talk) 02:19, 2 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 [33], 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? 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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]
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]

Nigam Arora

Initiated by John williams 7 (talk) at 21:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

John williams 7 (talk · contribs), filing party
Timtrent (talk · contribs) (signature is Fiddle Faddle)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Timtrent notified

I have posted the talk on other parties talk pge and also on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigam Arora and on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radiation monitoring in power plants

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The nature of the matter is such that at this stage anything other than arbitration is futile.

Among several points that are not discussed here for privacy reasons, the other party has vandalised the page by removing the links that disprove his assertion for deletion and grossly misrepresented Wikepedia policies to a new person on Wikepedia.

Statement by John williams 7

There are privacy concerns here. I have been made aware that there is a policy on editor outing and under no circumstance I want to violate this or any other policy of Wikepedia. I want to coMply with all policies of Wikepedia, but since I am new I do not want to inadvertently risk violating one of the many Wikepedia policies. Due to privacy and personal safety concerns, I am looking forward to guidance as to how to proceed. Perhaps the best way is for the committee to contact me via email at Johnwilliams7@livemail.com

THIS IS NOT A DISPUTE OVER CONTENT

THIS IS AN ISSUE OF AN EDITOR'S CONDUCT AND ULTIMATELY INTEGRITY OF WIKEPEDIA.

This matter is an extension of what is happening in real life to Wikepedia. Within Wikipedia it involves Gaming the System and possible Vandalism. Wikipedia:Gaming the system

I am new to wikepedia and have nothing to gain by engaging a war on Gaming the system at WIKEPEDIA. I came as an editor on wikepedia simply to help. I did not come to wikepedia to learn how to game the system and to engage in war that is obviously result of REAL LIFE situation outside Wikepedia. Since I have benefitted fro Wikepedia, I feel that it is my duty possibly before quitting Wikepedia to give the Arbtration Committee an opportuniy to either encourage gaming the system for personal vendetta from events outside Wikepedia or clamp down on such clever activity.

Due to privacy and safety concerns,I will wait for guidance as to how to provide more information to the committeee. In the meanwhile, if appropriate, there should be an injunction against Timtrent and his other identity from editing the pages in question. Further it appears approprite to request Administrators to not take any action on these pages until the arbitration committe makes its decision.

@Shell Kinney: This arbitration request has nothing to do with deletion request of two pages I started. It has to do with gaming the system and integrity of wikepedia. It is not a surprise that the a good gamesman can succeed in community following him. A consensus that is gamed by a variety of means including but not limited to as is exactly described inWikipedia:Gaming the systemand deleting a United States Patent and Trademark Office link to support a deletion and substituting the link with a link to support the position etc. is in reality not a consensus.

For Wikepedia's sake, a consensus should be an informed consensus. Go to United States Patent and trademark Office site and see for yourself that patents are not registered and anybody can not just get a patent. What is universally known to be false by all informed people as and can be easily learned at http://USPTO.gov has been proclaimed by the community as truth. If a community is mislead into believing that EARTH IS FLAT, does not make the earth flat.

I have filed for arbitration to give the arbitration committe an opportunity to stop gaming the system as has occured here and preserve integrity of Wikepedia. If the Arbitation committe wants the opportunity and wants the evidence on Wikepedia as well as outside Wikepedia that can not be disclosed here , please email me at JohnWilliams7@Live.com.

I will help you with arbitration, if you wish, otherwise I no longer have a dog in the fight as I am leaving Wikepedia. I did not come here to engage in gaming the system . Please read my parting comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigam Arora

I want to repeat it has nothing to do with nomination for deletion. Wikepedia process of deletion is sound as long as it is not gamed. Unfortunately there is a lot that can not be discussed here for privacy reasons.

I have extensive travel next week and as such will not be able to respond to any email from Wikepedia until next weekend, but rest assured of my full cooperation if you choose to pursue this matter. Since I am leaving Wikepedia, I will not be checking my Wikepedia page or this page. Should you chose to pursue this matter, and I recommend you do for the sake of integrity of Wikepedia, the sole means of communication with me will be via email. The issues here are too sensitive and I have heightened concerns based on events ouside Wikepedia for safety to discuss or present in public.

I will look forward to your email and will respond next weekend.

Statement by Tim Trent

I have no interest in this case. Judge me by my edits. I will take no further part in this. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tony Sidaway

I cleaned up some of the formatting on this application. The name "Fiddle Faddle" is a apparently pseudonym used by User:Timtrent in his signature. --TS 23:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've undertaken the task of notifying Timtrent. My actions in this case are purely clerical, so as to help an obviously new user to jump whatever hurdles may be needed for the Committee to establish whether there is a case to hear. --TS 23:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Eluchil404

After a brief review of the dispute it appears that John williams 7 is worried that User:Timtrent is trying to suppress The Truth which must be preserved for the good of Wikipedia. This is generally not an actionable claim. In any event, he may be better served by Deletion Review rather than arbitration. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Elen of the Roads

Looking at this from Timtrent's talkpage, particularly this demand that Timtrent identify himself, it seems that John williams 7 is of the opinion that Timtrent is some sinister opponent in the real world, rather than a random Wikipedia editor. This would explain his reluctance to engage in dispute resolution - although it would not be a justification for it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/1)

Several problems here - Fiddle Faddle is just User:Timtrent's signature; they are not two different accounts. Also, you need to notify him of this request. Articles are nominated for deletion all the time and the community seems to be in general agreement that the subject of the article you created does not meet the notability criteria. None of this rises to the level of needing arbitration; coming here is the last step in dispute resolution, not the first. If you have private evidence that you need to discuss, you can email arbcomwikimedia.org. Shell ^babelfish 23:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the caveat that I'd be willing to look over any private evidence, this looks a lot like an attempt to rehash Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigam Arora. Decline. Steve Smith (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Steve Smith. Risker (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per the cognizant explanation of Steve Smith. SirFozzie (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christ myth theory

Initiated by Eugene (talk) at 23:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Repeated discussions on the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6
Endless wrangling on the article's talk page
A few RfCs (E.g. here)

Statement by Eugeneacurry

I know that this is somewhat irregular, but I'd like the ArbCom to consider finally settling the matter of the Christ myth theory article's status as a WP:FRINGE topic. The article cites literal dozens of references in support of this identification, yet still editors object. The article's FA candidacy was recently derailed for this very reason. (SandyGeorgia indicated that the charge of POV was instrumental here.) For the sake of style I want to trim the number of citations in the lead, but I'm afraid that that will only increase the number of arguments over the fringe status of the topic. So, in an attempt to forestall that, I'd like very much to have some sort of official ruling that states the Christ myth theory article is, indeed, subject to the policies of WP:FRINGE. It will just make the remaining editting much easier.Eugene (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Smith, Considering how often this issue has come up I'd like to get something more official than that, if possible. The article has used RfCs a few times (E.g. here), but often when individual outside voices have stated that the topic does fall under WP:FRINGE, naysayers just accuse those voices of ignorance, bias, or outright conspiracy. (E.g. here) With an official ArbCom ruling all these attempts at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT will be much easier to address. Eugene (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia, I'm quite happy to take the article through the peer review process and I humbly recognize that the article could stand to be improved in a number of ways. I only want an ArbCom ruling, on top of that, that relates to the specific issue of the Christ myth theory's fringiness to settle this specific matter.Eugene (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Smith's follow up question, the "systematic" IDIDNTHEARTHAT has died down recently, at least as pertains to this issue. Most of the committed obstructionists finally saw that they couldn't win and so moved on. My concern is more with users who encounter the article for the first time and respond with knee-jerk disbelief that the topic could possibly be fringe. This kind of thing seems to be pretty routine; everytime the article gets some degree of exposure (questions asked at the RS and Fringe theory noticeboards, FA review, etc) someone freaks out and makes a big fuss about bias and NPOV. After a few days of back and forth on the talk page with lots of policy citations, source quoting, and so on, the newbies normally accept that nothing untoward is going on, but this process is predictable and bogs the article's progress down substantially. An ArbCom ruling on the article's status as a WP:FRINGE theory could be put into the headers of the talk page and referred to conveniently when these complaints arise in the future. It would save everyone involved a lot of time. Eugene (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Shell, the article's talk page currently has a FAQ in place. I've recently moved a large number of quotations into its content to help establish the fringe status of the theory at a glance. But even here there are problems: These quotations were already in place in the article when an FAC reviewer accused the article of major POV in that "The writers are presenting a POV as fact, and this idea as fringe when it may simply be a minority position." Also, another editor has claimed that the use of an FAQ to establish the fringiness of the topic is an unacceptable form of censorship--he even deleted it outright once; he's fond of using the phrase "chilling effect". It's for things like this that I'd love it if the ArbCom could render a simple ruling, something like "After reviewing the citations listed on the Christ myth theory page, it is the decision of the Arbitration Committee that this topic qualifies as a fringe theory according to the definition at WP:FRINGE and is subject to the policies contained in that guideline."

@Shell's follow-up, Well, if the ArbCom can't help then I guess it can't help. My final plea is that the ArbCom see this not so much as a content matter, but as a policy matter: Is the Christ myth theory article subject to the specific policies outlined at WP:FRINGE? Like I originally said, I realize that this is somewhat irregular, but I think the ArbCom is arguably the appropriate authority to settle this once and for all. Eugene (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved statement from SandyGeorgia

Since I was mentioned, because I archived the FAC :) Eugene, with respect for the amount of time and effort you've put into the article, my broader point was that additional content review processes would benefit the article, before bringing it to FAC. GA review is only one reviewer, not a community-wide process; talk page discussions typically bring in only involved editors; and other processes, like a peer review or an RFC, would be a more helpful next step. ArbCom is typically more necessary when there are also significant behavioral issues, complicating the content issues (see the next case listed here). I don't think this is yet ripe for arbitration; I'm sorry that implies you may need to do more work in dispute resolution or other content review processes. Best of luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/1)

Question - Is there a reason that a content RFC would not be helpful here? Steve Smith (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up question - How large is the class of editors you accuse of IDIDNTHEARTHAT? If consensus does indeed exist that this is a fringe theory (as Moreschi claims in one of your links), and there are specific editors who systematically ignore that consensus, it seems to me that this is better cast as a conduct issue with respect to those editors. Steve Smith (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Have you considered an FAQ on the talk page? Sometimes if the same issue comes up repeatedly, having a link to past discussions and their consensus can forestall some of the shocked reactions. Shell ^babelfish 11:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, you're asking for a content decision and that's not something we can do. As Steve says, if there are specific editors who are problematic, you're going to want to re-frame the case that way, otherwise, the case will almost certainly be rejected. Shell ^babelfish 17:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Decline as mentioned, ArbCom can't do content disputes or make policy rulings. Shell ^babelfish 14:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline - Based on your explanation, this is in essence a content decision. A "ruling" on whether this article falls under FRINGE or not would determine to some degree how the content of the article is to be handled. I don't see any evidence based on your statement that there are behavioral factors at play here, which as SandyGeorgia mentions, is primarily what ArbCom deals with. I would recommend you continue discussing this with other editors in the field, seek out some third opinions, and otherwise move up the dispute resolution chain. Sandy provides a number of good suggestions as well. The main issue with what you're asking for is that it doesn't provide the community an easy way to reassess the article's status, should this become a more mainstream (less debatably fringe?) idea, whereas consensus has the ability to change as needed. Sorry for the long post. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline This has been presented to us as a content dispute, which ArbCom doesn't handle. SirFozzie (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, content dispute. - Mailer Diablo 12:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline - KnightLago (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Hersfold. Risker (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church

Initiated by Karanacs (talk) at 18:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Karanacs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
NancyHeise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Xandar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Richardshusr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Taam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Haldraper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Anietor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Johnbod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Afterwriting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
History2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Majoreditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Farsight001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Marauder40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

NancyHeise [34]
Xandar [35]
Richardshusr [36]
Pmanderson [37]
Taam [38]
Haldraper [39]
Anietor [40]
Johnbod [41]
Afterwriting [42]
History2007 [43]
Majoreditor [44]
Marauder40 [45]
Farsight001 [46]
Article talk page: [47]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church (deleted per priveleged nature of mediation)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NancyHeise
Numerous AN/I listings and 3RR reports, including [[48]]16 Nov 2009, Nov, 14 Dec

Statement by Karanacs

User:NancyHeise and User:Xandar have inserted/pushed a very pro-Catholic Church POV into Catholic Church and have essentially owned the page, making it extraordinarily difficult for others to enforce WP policies including NPOV and no original research.

Several editors (including me) have argued on the talk page that parts of the article reflect a very pro-Catholic viewpoint, give undue weight to relatively unimportant matters and gloss over more notable aspects, and often rely on synthesis and misunderstanding/misinterpretation of the sources used. When a new editor presents similar concerns NancyHeise and Xandar often greet them with personal attacks and sockpuppet accusations. This has driven away many editors with alternative viewpoints away from the article. A sampling from the last 2 years:

30 Jan 2010 User:Hamiltonstone: [49]
1 Dec 2009 User:Harmakheru: [50] (left Wikipedia completely the following week)
16 Jun 2008 User:Awadewit: [51]
2 Jun 2008 User:jbmurray: [52]
22 May 2008 User:Ealdgyth [53]

Editors who remain are often subject to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, misrepresentation of their comments and/or sources, personal attacks, and a gross failure to assume good faith. Personal attacks and lack of AGF have also been seen in those with opposing viewpoints, particularly Taam and Pmanderson.

Changes made to the article are almost immediately reverted if Xandar or NancyHeise disagree with the content, even if there has been consensus on the talk page for the change. This has led to edit-warring, resulting in repeated page protection. [54] - (a total of about 18 days over last four months)

If a change is not reverted, NancyHeise often waits a few weeks before accusing the "new" text of being "anti-Catholic" and rehashing the same arguments she originally gave, thus forcing the discussion to start over. The result: it takes months for any change to "stick", and often means those who disagree with NancyHeise and Xandar simply give up on that particular issue in frustration. The latest example of this is from 19 Feb 2010, where NancyHeise posted [55] in reference to a paragraph rewrite. This had been discussed extensively from 30 Nov 2009 through 9 Dec 2009, where NancyHeise had also registered the same argument - which was then refuted.(see Talk:Catholic Church/Archive_40#coverage_of_sex_abuse_cases)

Further dispute resolution is unlikely to be helpful. The mediation listed above was the culmination of over 12 months of argument on the first sentence of the article. At this rate, it could be decades before the POV and synthesis is removed. (trimmed Karanacs (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Response to NancyHeise

I have used administrative tools exactly twice in relation to this article: I protected the page on 26 Oct 2009 for a few hours due to edit-warring (in which I was not involved) and I extended blocks on both Xandar and User:Leadwind (who hold opposing viewpoints) after they both evaded blocks for edit-warring. As FAC delegate I have neither taken nor threatened to take actions on this article. Karanacs (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NancyHeise's extended statement refers to my filing this arbitration as a "misuse of (admin) power". Can someone neutral please explain to her that this has nothing to do with admin rights or "power"? Karanacs (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to arbitrators

While there are numerous content disputes on the page (and I certainly don't see those going away any time soon), the problem is the pattern of behavior surrounding them. We could pick any particular content dispute on this page and see the exact same behavioral pattern - personal attacks, revert wars, POV-pushing, page ownership, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, editing against consensus, WP:OR, refusal to abide by consensus, ... If this case is rejected, I would appreciate more guidance from the arbitrators on what the next steps should be. Karanacs (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been protected for 2 weeks due to more edit-warring. Please note also that NancyHeise, in justifying readding material that was removed as a result of discussion over the last few months, is implying on the talk page that there can be no consensus without her presence [56]. Karanacs (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Haldraper

I agree with Karanacs' comments about the WP:POV and WP:OWN issues associated with both Xandar and Nancy Heise, in particular Nancy's tactic of attempting to reopen discussions that have been resolved after weeks of debate on the talk page after an interval on the spurious grounds that the resulting text is "anti-Catholic". Haldraper (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by History2007

Please excuse me from this discussion. A day or so ago, before the arb notice went up, I said goodbye to that article (with this edit: [57] which is copied below for your convenience) and do not want to be involved in that talk page or other long discussions on Wikipedia. That discussion was just too looooooong and non-productive for me. I think there are so many articles that need improvement and I do not think it is worth anyone's time to talk so much - it is better to go and fix other articles than keep talking on that type of page for ever and ever. I was so fed up with that talk page that I went back to write an article on computer science because I found the religious debate there totally non-productive. I have come to think that the current overall Wiki-infrastructure can not support this type of discussion. Anyway, this was my goodbye message to those people:

I should say that as an "outside observer" I find this discussion just unbelievable and surreal. This could not be happening.... I am not taking sides on the issue - I really do not care about this subtopic. But the types and tones of arguments presented by various sides is just amazing and makes me wonder if "any" progress can be made in this type of atmosphere. I would strongly suggest to all sides to calm down and be more focused, but I doubt it will work in this atmosphere.

My feeling is that current Wikipedia rules are inadequate for moderating heated talk page debates, and there is almost no way out except fatigue causing some participants to give up. I think I am going to stop watching this talk page for a while and just drop in very occasionally - reading this type of material is just non-productive. But I would suggest a banner on the top of the talk page advising new editors of what awaits them on this talk page. How about Dante: "Abandon hope all ye enter here" [58].

At least this joke may calm some nerves for a short while before the debate heats up again. My guess is that the debate will not go very far anyway and will be forgotten in 9 months, so you guys should probably try to stay calm..... Cheers. History2007 (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, I am out of here. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hamiltonstone

(ec)I first came to this article about December 2009 I think. I agree with Karanacs' observations, including PMAnderson sometimes being as vociferous as either Xandar or Nancy Heise on the talk page (though in my experience usually more reasonable than either when it comes to edits in the article space). Examples of editing behaviour.

Richardshusr tries to insert a neutral description of one of the contested issues (after previous edit warring, talk page discussion etc around this issue). A few hours later Xandar adds this, intrducing a POV that had been contested on the talk page. This then triggers others piling in to fix the POV, which Xandar then promptly reverts, prompting Richard to once again try and restore the balance, but notice that Richard has now been pushed to restore balance to a POV added by Xandar, rather than going back to his original, pretty sound formulation. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A relatively uninvolved editor Mike Searson comes in and does some editing, probably in the wake of talk page discussion about excessive length. He removes some text, including a sentence about the similarity of contemporary Mass to its early predecessor, as being insufficiently important in the context of this article. Xandar immediately reverts. Searson reverts, with an edit summary "Revert, good faith edit, non-essential, and strongly POV. Discuss on the talk Page". Xandar, while reverting various bits of trimming, reverts again. The discussion on the talk page however shows no debate about the issue, as requested by Searson. Xandar's preferred text currently remains in the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I now note History2007's contribution above, which can be added to the other examples provided by Karanacs in the initial statement. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the talk page. There appears to be a long history of antagonism between some editors, esp Xandar and Nancy, and PMAnderson, that leads the latter to make some uncivil contributions, such as this. PM may have believed himself provoked, but nothing in Xandar's text appeared to warrant this reaction. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, actually, there is a short history. As a side effect of the last change of article name, Xandar has been trying to change naming policy up and down Wikipedia. He has recieved no support from anyone not involved in the Catholic Church discussion - on the same side; and has lasted until now chiefly by canvassing for meat-puppets. Nancy has been among the most frequent of these. But none of this is much before the present discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I stand by my view PMA - I have felt that your comments at the talk page and in edit summaries have been every bit as inflammatory as any of Xandar's. Nancy is a different case - polite, but sometimes not respecting guidelines, research or reasoned argument in my view. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am disengaging from the article. I don't have the commitment to be active in these discussions. I came as an uninvolved editor and made the mistake of staying around to become another flak-attractor on the talk page. FWIW, I would recommend a medium-term (3 months?) ban on Nancy, Xandar and PMA from the mainspace and possibly the talk page, encouraging them to work elsewhere for a while, but i don't know if it would have the desired effect. It seems to me there is insufficient grasp (by some) of the extent to which aspects of the article need to be informed by external and independent analysis. There may also be a lack of sociology and political science in explaining the church as a social institution rather than relying on the premise that it is a religion (which is one crucial, but nevertheless only one of, its dimensions). I see some promising signs in some discussions of recent days, so we may see further improvements. I was optimistic when I saw Karanacs bringing her mind to bear on the history, but not so optimistic about this Arb request. But I won't be continuing to participate, other than as a reviewer if and when reviewers are called upon. It's off my watchlist. All the best. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xandar

A request for arbritation is not proper here since all forms of dispute resolution have not been used. The mediation cited by Karanacs is no part of this complaint. It was on a very different issue raised by very different persons - namely the article title - and was successfully concluded. The only RFC made on the article was raised by Nancy Heise. There has been no attempt to involve the POV noticeboard. There has also been absolutely no attempt to enter into either a formal or informal mediation process on the issues raised as set down in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy.

If, as Karanacs suggests, article improvement is being blocked, then mediation is the obvious step. If editors were acting against WP rules, then the incidents now vaguely alleged should have been brought to the attention of admins. I'm not sure what Karanacs exact complaint is. If it's about content matters, she is in the wrong place. She seems to be complaining that I, Nancy, and others have opposed some of her and her allies plans for the article. That is also related to content. I know that a group aligned with karanacs want to “put the article right”. However others see this as wanting the article to present an unbalanced negative picture. This creates content-related disagreement which can only be resolved by patient processes which Karanacs doesn't seem to want to undertake. As for other charges:

"Undue weight given to unimportant matters in aid of a pro-Catholic POV". This is a content matter, and does not assume good faith in those of different opinion to her own. The article compares for balance with Encyclopedia Britannica, and presents more critical viewpoints. It has been rated as a WP Good Article for many years, and has been put up several times for Featured Article, with a majority of reviewers in support.
Namcy and myself have several times tried to get the current review of the article to run in an orderly constructive way. However editors have constantly raised new issues before others are settled, which has been the main stall to progress – along with disruptives such as Taam and PMAnderson.

The accusation that I and Nancy Heise greet newcomers and others with personal attacks is false. No diffs for this are provided. In fact Nancy and I have been the victims of unprovoked attacks. Constructive editors are welcomed. And I have made just one sockpuppet accusation, when an anonymous new account with extensive knowledge of WP processes edit-warred fringe conspiracy theories. Unlike many controversial articles Catholic Church is not semi-protected and so attracts disruptive anonymous edits.

No consensus edits have been reverted by me or Nancy. Controversial changes made without discussion get reverted on most articles on the “Bold, Revert, Discuss” principle. Some editors unfortunately ignore the “discuss” phase and try to edit war unagreed changes in place, causing the page locks.

Hamiltonstone complains that I reversed certain edits, however these too were unagreed substantive changes made after requests by several editors to agree text on talk first. He also misrepresents History2007, who, like many Catholic leaning editors have been forced away by the tone of detractors of the article. To sum up, this is primarily about content. Attempts to allege that Nancy and I are somehow breaking WP rules by standing up for what we consider a balanced approach are bogus, unfounded and unverified.

(Short version. Longer version on my talk page) Xandar 06:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnbod

Here we all are again! I commented at some length on the Rfc on Nancy & don't want to again. In fact Nancy was very little present on the talk page for some time afterwards, until a recent return, and this made absolutely no difference to the amount of argument and level of rancour. The behaviour of some on the "other side" is at least as bad - PMAnderson is especially savage to new faces, while Nancy generally only gets heavy with people after a period of argument. There are a number of other editors who could have been made "interested parties" (Soidi = Lima, no? If so, he is no 4 on the talk page edit count) and many who pass through quickly, lacking the stamina that following the page needs. Many of these come in with fists flying too. User:Harmakheru was extremely agressive & uncivil, to name but one.

While I broadly support the sort of changes the nominators want, I very often disagree with their specific suggestions, & others will do so more strongly. There are real difficulties with this page, trying to cram in a balanced treatment into a very overcrowded page. Nancy and Zandar feel that every controversial issue connected with the Church should be raised and the church's official stance or response given, as it is with similar articles. This is not in itself a wrong position, though I don't always like the text it produces. One particular problem is that there is no one editor with a really sound knowledge of the whole area, or even just the history, and NPOV, who all sides can respect, and who can produce drafts. In the absence of such a figure I'm not sure how things will progess. There are a great number of wordy participants, and new topics keep being introduced and taken up without old ones having been taken to a conclusion. Just following the page fully is virtually a full-time job; I certainly don't do that. I still believe that the potential is there for progressing the page, and I suppose it is improving, perhaps more than the regulars appreciate. But just blaming the problems on Nancy and Zandar is neither fair nor helpful. Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to PMAnderson (see his below)

Re my quote, Taam had said "Agree with PMA, the Black Legend article is a good example of whitewashing of history and Wikipedia should not be an apologetic's web-site ...". I was, rather obviously, quoting from Black Legend, which begins: "The Black Legend ... is a term ... [for] the world's Hispanophobia in the Early Modern period, resulting in the perception of Spain and Spaniards as "cruel", "intolerant" and "fanatical"." My reply to Taam was, in full: "And clearly you have your own POV here! So "Spain and Spaniards" are indeed" "cruel", "intolerant" and "fanatical""?" Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NancyHeise

The items listed in "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" lists three actions. One of them is a mediation that was deleted "due to privledged nature of mediation". I was the party that initiated that mediation after a lengthy dispute on the talk page prevented the article's advancement. Over 19 editors participated in that mediation and the successful outcome was posted here by the mediator [59]. This was not a failed mediation but one that ultimately helped the article progress beyond the name dispute.
The second item listed as a dispute resolution effort is Karanac's RFC against me here [60] - In the past three months, I have been minimally involved, editing the article 24 times, most of which were minor, none of which were contentious. I've listed them here [61]
Karanacs initiated this arbitration against me and Xandar but just as she did with my RFC, failed to see the extremely disruptive behaviour of other editors like Harmakheru [62] [63], Taam,[64][65] and PMAnderson who is probably the most vociferous and persistently insulting and edit warring. These sections of the article's talk page [66] offer a glimpse of this. (see collapsed portion in second para[67]), [68]. Here's an example of when I provided a Routledge source that discussed scientific evidence collected from 1960 to the present day regarding the quality of Catholic schools - yet Haldraper calls this POV pushing and Karanacs says the evidence is outdated when the book lists a series of scientific studies from 1960 up to 2001.[69] I was trying to improve the section entitled "Catholic Institutions" and the Church operates the world's largest non-governmental school system. It has been very difficult for anyone to try and insert actual facts that say anything good about the Church without being labeled POV pushers by some editors.
My previous complaints about Karanacs [70]
Evidence of our problems with Karanacs behavior on the page [71]
Evidence of another involved editor who disagrees with Karanacs assessment [72]
Most recent evidence of my and Xandar's participation in the improvement process[73]. Xandar has reverted edits to the article that were made without discussion and change sourced agreed text. Other editors make these same corrections. Since I own or have access to most of the sources, I sometimes check the page to see if the cited sentences agree with the source and correct them if they don't. PMAnderson is probably the worst violator - he/she makes frequent undiscussed changes to cited sentences that then makes the sentence say something that is not in the source. This editor has very little knowledge of the article subject and provides virtually no sources in our discussions but only seems to participate on the talk page in an effort to create a battleground mentality there and engage in edit warring on the article page.(recent examples [74] [75][76] [77] [78] [79]

Nancy's response to Hesperian's comments below

Because of space limitations on this page please see my response to Hesperian on my talk page here [80]. NancyHeise ^talk 03:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hesperian

Add me to the list of people who tried to contribute to that discussion and were driven away by the dogmatic irrationality of NancyHeise and Xandar.

In my case the issue was their attempt to source their claim that most modern historians agree with the Catholic Church's view of its origin. First they tried to source it to Giovanni Battista Pagani's The pillar and foundation of truth, an 1840s Catholic tract that set out to prove, using logic, the infallibility of the pope. It took several days of arguing to convince them that a 19th century Catholic tract cannot possibly shed light on what secular historians believe today. They never conceded the point, but eventually they changed tack and offered another source. And another. And another and another and another. Source after source after source, not one of which supported their cherished assertion. It went on for weeks. There's an entire archive page in there dedicated to Nancy and Xandar throwing up sources ato support their claim; and others shooting them down as utterly irrelevant. Meanwhile Nancy throws up spurious objections like 'The book you cite above is listed as a "religion" book by googlebooks, not "history".' or 'there is consensus for that claim because it was present when the article failed FAC'. All the while Xandar insists that our objections are the wikilawyering quibbling of anti-Catholic POV-pushers, because of course the sheer volume of trash that we've taken out proves our bad faith.

The talk page was, and still is, unbearably putrid. I had to leave.

Statement by Richardshusr

I have wondered in the past whether I would like to be an arbitrator and have always decided that the answer was "No". This case is an example of why. What a useless and counter-productive squabble among Wikipedians. Nobody is right and everybody is wrong.

My opinion is that there is not much to arbitrate here except to hand out a few stiff warnings or even a couple of good solid smackdowns for incivility.

While I do not see Xandar and NancyHeise as being as noble, judicious and fair-minded as they portray themselves to be, neither do I see them to be quite as detrimental to the article and the project as Karanacs and others portray them to be.

NancyHeise in particular has done yeoman work on this article and anything I say on the Talk Page is always said with awed respect for her prodigious efforts.

That said, Xandar and NancyHeise have contributed to a battleground mentality on the Talk Page because they fight tooth-and-nail to put the Catholic Church in a positive light rather than seeking an NPOV treatment of the topic. The one single thing that I could most hope for from this arbitration would be a recognition on their part of how severely their intransigence and pro-Catholic POV impedes progress on the article.

The battleground mentality on the Talk Page has stoked intense frustration among Karanacs and others. This is a frustration which I share. However, the frustration by no means justifies the incredible lack of civility that has been exhibited by PManderson, Taam and others. Harmakheru was also somewhat uncivil but that incivility was an order less harsh than that of PManderson and Taam.

I will comment that I agree in substance with most of the comments made by Karanacs, Harmakheru, PManderson and Taam. I just refuse to condone the incivility that has often accompanied those comments. This is not the Wikipedia way.

Thus, the second thing that I would hope for from this arbitration is a serious smackdown of those who have crossed the line with respect to incivility. However frustrating working with Xandar and NancyHeise may be, it is unacceptable to call someone a liar when assumption of good faith might explain the other person's opinions as being sincere ignorance or prejudice.

Of all the statements made so far on this ARBCOM case, the one I agree with most is the one made by Johnbod.

--Richard S (talk) 09:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment above about the arbitrator's task being a thankless one, just reading this request for arbitration fatigues me and we haven't even started the arbitration itself. However, I think it is important to note that there has been little or no mention of the "Tag Wars" in which a number of editors (most notably Haldraper and PManderson, I think) insisted on putting various "too long", "disputed", "NPOV" tags on the article. The ensuing edit wars and endless Talk Page arguments were seriously obstructive to making progress on the article. Frankly, watching them derail constructive discussion was so frustrating that I wanted to scream. --Richard S (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Septentrionalis (PMAnderson)

Moving entire statement to a subpage; it will be found at User:Pmanderson/CC.

This is as much, and as little, a content dispute as WP:ARBMAC2. In both cases, a clique of editors have been attempting to impose a POV by canvassing, meatpuppetry, abuse, battlefield mentality and academic fraud. This is conduct; and it is conduct against long-standing and clear policy. Here, even more clearly than at ARBMAC2, some of the editors involved avow their intention to have our articles express a particular point of view; in this case, a positive one of the Roman church. As there, some editors have been driven to express their opinion of the process, as Future Perfect did on the Macedonia matter; I may be, as FP was, open to sanction.

I therefore ask those who would decline this case whether they think ARBMAC2 was correctly decided, and if so, in what respect the cases differ.

I would also suggest a motion more or less to the following effect:

Declaring that Catholic Church should or must convey a positive view of its subject is contrary to NPOV. Declaring that Catholic Church should or must convey a negative view of its subject would be equally contrary to NPOV. AE is therefore empower to impose sanctions on those who express oppostion to this core value, not to exceed banning from the article and its talk page for the period of one year.

This would at least remove those who only come by to vote for the "Catholic point of view"; it should be worded so it clearly does not cover Johnbod, Stormrider, and all those who voted against this egregiously biased RFC proposal.

This would reduce the matter to the usual dull roar over a content dispute, by breaking up the clique; but if this is not done, I predict that ArbCom will see this again before the year is out; and I do not intend to bring it here. Suggestions for other relief are welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ealdgyth

I debated making a statement here, but as "outside" voices are always welcome at ArbCom, I thought a short statement from someone peripherally involved might help.

By my editing history, I should be deeply involved in this article. In the topic area covered by the Catholicism wikiproject, I’ve shepherded 16 FAs through FAC, 47 GAs, 1 FL, and a featured topic. I obviously have an interest in a subset of the project. Why do I repeat these stats? Mainly because it shows I don't have a "anti-Catholic" bias.

However, I've never seriously tried to contribute to the CC article. I've dipped my toes in a couple of times, and I watch the talk page religiously (ooh, bad pun!) but have never seriously dug in and edited. Why? Mainly because the atmosphere from many of the participants (on both sides) is so poisonous. A couple of times when I've tried to contribute, I've been accused of bias against the Church. (Never had pro-Church bias alleged, but I'm sure it could happen). It's just not worth the bother to try to contribute, I have better things to do.

Yes, there is a lot that is good about the article, but to edit a contentious topic you must try to understand where the other side is coming from, and accusations of bias against or for Catholicism don't help. That just starts a cycle of mutual recriminations that never ends.

I have my own personal views of who is "more wrong" in the dispute, but at this point what needs to be done is to set a good example. Maybe that means topic banning people on both sides. The article needs more editors who remain calm and attempt to see the other side's viewpoint (whatever side they are coming from), not more folks who pick sides and spend their time defending it vociferously.

I really have no desire to get dragged into an ArbCom case, but I wanted to make it clear that the problems go beyond "content" to "behavior", at least as this mostly-uninvolved editor sees it. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mike Searson

I was an early editor on this article, before many of the current parties, despite one of them erroneously referring to me as a "new editor". I saw this turning into a quagmire long ago and pretty much have distanced myself from it aside from reverting obvious vandalism. I think good work and bad work has been done by all sides. I think personal attacks have gone overboard from both sides, although I've only personally been attacked by one side. (Ironically I've been accused of being a "Traditionalist Catholic", a "Schismatic Catholic", an "Anti-Catholic", and a "Liberal Catholic" by the same parties). I am a practicing Catholic (who admittedly prefers the Latin Mass, but attends both), I was in the Seminary(I know a little bit about what should be here and what should not), I want to see an article about the Catholic Church that is fair in its POV(which does not mean exactly midpoint between a hit piece and an apologetic tract). I want to see an article that is written and sourced so well that it attains featured status; something I realize will never happen if the current pattern of behavior is left unchecked. I have better things to spend my time on than to work with editors who refuse to engage in conversation and want every miniscule detail inserted into an article that neither informs nor engages the reader nor any longer has any semblance to an encyclopedia article. The ownership issues need to be addressed. People who wish to edit need to read the rules and work on consensus. They need to understand what Summary Style means. Granted, due to the nature of its subject matter, this article will be a long one. However, expounding on trivial bits of information that are better discussed elsewhere is completely unnecessary. We went through this nonsense maybe 2-3 years ago when certain parties wished to include the Nicene Creed verbatim. The bottom line is between the snarky personal attacks tossed back and forth on the talk page, deep problems with ownership, and constant edit warring…nothing can ever be accomplished with regard to improving the article. How anyone can edit in this toxic environment is beyond me! I say that as someone who has had his life threatened over other wiki-articles.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Farsight001

As I am not listed in the participating party above, and have not involved myself in the discussion on the talk page, I am not entirely sure I am supposed to comment, but I was asked to. So I will keep it as short as I can. Since other users have posted link after link after link to edits, I will refrain (also because I am horrible at it myself) In reading what people have typed on the talk page, and in tracking edits as I have (while I did not participate in the discussion/edits, I did keep a fairly close eye on it), I find this to, frankly, be an issue of the pot calling the kettle black, except my kettle in this analogy is an average grey instead of black and is severely outnumbered by pots. This is, in my view, what the ultimate problem is. Xander and Nancy are trying to actually keep the article pretty npov (though a tiny bit biased), while the copius other editors, in outnumbering Xander and Nancy, have instinctively come to the conclusion that they are trying to own the article instead. People with superior numbers have a psychological tendency to assume they are in the right and this often clouds a person's objectivity. In my view, as a psychologist, that is exactly what is happening here.

I also want to point out that neutrality here does not, as some people seem to think, mean half good and half bad, but rather to accurately represent sources. Sinc the CC has, overall, had a more positive than negative history, then the article really ought to be a bit more positive than negative too. And personally, I still feel that a whole lot needs to be cut from the history section of the article. There already exists a History of the Catholic Church article, so why list it twice, especially stuff that was relatively minor in the history of the Church? ...So...not as short a comment as I thought. Oops.Farsight001 (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by str1977

It's been a while since I have been involved with the article and have encountered the people in question here (both Nancy and Karanacs) so I can't speak about recent behaviour. However, when I was involved I cannot confirm the accusations levelled here. Nancy did not spin a pro-Catholic POV. Not that I was not, at times, critical of her and other editors.

(And "very" in this context can only be hyperbole. It takes a lot of nerve to speak this way when for months various editors even blocked any acknowledgement of even the name of the "Catholic Church".)

Indeed, there have been various cases of "Undue weight (being) given to unimportant matters" but not simply to push a pro-Catholic POV but often in responses to some editor's request. Quite often, some editor requested that something be covered (often in a POV critical of the church) and Nancy would immediately make edits to that effect, including the matter. Way too often and too ready for my taste, as including such details in the overall umbrella article Catholic Church opened up new problem conciseness and a full and balanced coverage of an issue collided. (The sex-ed example linked to above also works this way: somebody wants to add this into the article - in itself a violation of the "undue weight" policy IMHO, leading to a constant back and forth between those that want to simply take a shot and those that want to give a balanced picture).

These all are content issues and I therefore agree with the comments above that ArbCom is not the proper avenue for this. However, that these situations flare up point out, that Nancy did not do what she is accused of.

PS. I wholeheartedly agree with Johnbod's summary above and also in principle with Farsight.

Str1977 ^(talk) 08:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Taam

Agree with the main points of Karanacs summary including her comments about me, but would distinguish between cause and effect. It seems clear that at some point I came to the conclusion, as several others have, that it was unreasonable to assume good faith because there was no longer any grounds for believing that this was indeed the case when even the most trivial corrections could not be sorted out e.g the assertion that Einstein praised the "Catholic Church" when its clear from looking at the Time Magazine article, the source of the quotation that appears in summary accounts, that the word "Catholic" is an interpolation. Another source uses a cherry picked quotation taken from a Carlo Falconi book that when viewed in it's original context grossly distorts the authors position. It seems to be the case that if a source shows fallibility it stays in the article so long as it is favorable to the spin of the editors in question.

A source like Encyclopedia Britannica is "respectable" and used as the benchmark of quality when it supports the prevailing pov but is quickly dismissed when it, and the overwhelming majority of independent reference works, choose as the article title Roman Catholic[ism] rather than the contentious "Catholic Church" presently used in Wikipedia, or as Xandar puts it black bold type "Why do you waste your time and that of everyone on this page cluttering up the page with all these reams of RUBBISH?

Another example of the double standards that seem to be in operation relates to a recent proposal to restructure the article in the form of integrated themes but this is rejected because "The whole process of selecting themes is fraught with POV issues." However, it was the same editor (Xandar) who created such a broad themed section, "Cultural Influences", along with Nancy, completely at odds with the chronological sequencing approach that the same editor claims to prefer. This section was described at FAR as "jaw droppingly pov" and "comically one-sided".

There are contributors on this page who allude to the belligerence of other people yet who also feel that its ok for them to tell editors to "shut up", "keep taking the pills", "I thought the causes of your disturbances were much more deeply seated" or playing the "anti-catholic" card.

The article does seem to be a magnet for editors who don't reflect the scholarship of a broad, catholic, Church. One extreme example is an editor who has used "hundreds" of sock puppet names on Wikipedia but cannot give Pope John Paul II his name-title but refers to him as Wojtyla, presumably because he wasn't a real catholic or Pope.

The anti-catholic card that always seems to be floating around seems from my perspective designed to deter unwanted knowledgeable editors from contributing or alternatively to have them drop their objectivity in an effort to prove they are not persecuting the Church, e.g FA reviewers are described by Xandar as a vocal minority who "aren't going to support an article that doesn't echo their strongly anti-catholic misapprehensions and POV"[81] and Nancy grouping Karanacs with anti-catholics[82], all credit to her for not running away as so many others have.

Whatever the issues are relating to AGF and name calling it seems important not to lose sight of the underlying issues that are the cause - the article itself and the editors who have effectively taken ownership and built a wall around their text. Taam (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the criticism of PMA on this page: He is blunt, economical with his words to the point of being cryptic, assuming (in humility?) that who he is in dialogue with is equally bright and straightforward. Unlike the main protagonists in this dispute I don't know what his religious affiliation is, and that is a good thing. The only time I have interacted with him related to the article Julian, the so called Apostate. We were on opposite side of the fence in that dispute but I acknowledge now that with the benefit of hindsight there was wisdom on his side in choosing the least worst option that didn't open the door to even worse wrongs as happened to the title of the article in dispute here. Xandar has been trying to ensure that Wikipedia policy is made such that it can be used to protect the title of this single article. PMA has been trying to protect the neutrality of Wikipedia in this attempt. Xandar has also been canvassing to other editors in this arbcom case who have no significant recent involvement with this article. I don't recommend PMA's banning from this the article in view of his wideband knowledge and essential honesty but like me he has to realize it doesn't help matters expressing sincere opinions to people who seem to be driven by other values. With regard to Hamiltonstone, I am genuinely sorry if I have contributed to your leaving of the article and would most willingly submit to a voluntary ban from Wikipedia if it would influence you to stay. Taam (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by uninvolved Wehwalt

I have had zero involvement with this article. I find myself agreeing with much of what has been said by the previous two commentators [before Taam's stmt], and with Johnbod.

I urge ArbCom to tread carefully here. If you accept this case, keep in mind that you will be even closer to the line between conduct and content than even in the I-P cases.

I see some incivility (which, frankly, should probably have been handled by calling in uninvolved admins). Yes, I see editors reluctant to participate in the article, but that's due to the high knowledge level by the main editors (drive by editors had better know their stuff here!) as well as the difficult conversations. However, I also see a very good article, which has been taken seriously at FAC on multiple occasions though it has not passed. I would hate to see ArbCom throw cold water on some of our fine content and contributors.

It may well be that article probation, 1RR, severe warnings, and others of the usual suspects will help here. Or they may be used as weapons by those who are involved. But to the basic issue: the difficulties in this article stem from differences in perspective, playing themselves out as a long-term content dispute. I think the conduct issues are just symptoms of that, and that any acceptance of the case by ArbCom will only treat symptoms.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Student7 (uninvolved)

After spending a lot of time attempting to get the article to FA, both NancyHeise and Xandar know quite a bit about the topic. It is understandable that other editors may be intimidated by their knowledge. That is the way it is with editors who have spent a long time researching a topic. Nor should "votes" be used to determine the truth on a given matter.

It is a shame that this should be catapulted to arbitration, skipping the mediation step. I realize that being outargued when they appear to "have the votes" can contribute to editors frustration.

While the church has about a billion adherents, it also has, after 2 millenia, a few enemies as well. While their pov must be represented, they need not predominate. In all articles, the topic must be allowed to present itself in the best light, then allow attacks by WP:RELY sources. But it must not become a WP:COATRACK for people who don't like the topic or harbor an animosity for its adherents. Student7 (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Snowded

I can't say I am uninvolved as I keep the page under watch and I am also a Catholic. With that qualification this posting smacks to me of editors who have failed to achieve a position in a series of content issues seeking to use this forum to achieve their goals by other means. After a long mediation the name issue was resolved, but we then saw a refusal to accept that mediation. As far as I can see Nancy has always addressed content issues and show considerable patience. If this is taken up then it should behavioral issues only and all editors should be subject to examination as to their conduct. Overall however I see no reason for it to come here, other methods have not been used (or where used ignored). --Snowded ^TALK 08:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/3/2/1)

Awaiting statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recused; I was one of the mediators in the mentioned case. Shell ^babelfish 07:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accept - Dispute resolution on the conduct side seems to have gone as far as it can without our involvement. Steve Smith (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. Risker (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accept to focus solely on the issues of conduct. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline; while there are conduct issues, they are not arbitration material. I would encourage some uninvolved admins to — well — get involved. — Coren ^(talk) 04:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can go either way here. I'd like to see some statements from the parties on whether this is something a couple (say, 3), of uninvolved administrators can work on, or if they see arbitration as an inevitability. SirFozzie (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After further review, Decline. The content dispute is the prime mover here. SirFozzie (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline - This is primarily a content dispute, with some conduct issues mixed in. Putting aside the content dispute, at this point the conduct issues are not yet ripe for arbitration. The parties should continue the dispute resolution process, and use the various noticeboards when administrator intervention is necessary. I too encourage uninvolved admins to get involved. KnightLago (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 267: / Line 267: @@
 ===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. [[User:Hell in a Bucket|Hell In A Bucket]] ([[User talk:Hell in a Bucket|talk]]) 15:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
+:'''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? 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? [[User:Hell in a Bucket|Hell In A Bucket]] ([[User talk:Hell in a Bucket|talk]]) 02:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 === Comment by Headbomb ===