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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Anachronist		16 June 2024	0/5/0
Rio Grande 223		19 June 2024	0/3/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Block of Rp2006	21 June 2024

Current requests

Jehochman, Elonka, ChrisO

Initiated by Jehochman ^Talk at 07:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

[1]
[2]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka

Statement by Jehochman

Consider section this struck

Elonka has been advising an IP editor who hopes for the desysopping of User:ChrisO.[3][4] As I am sure the committee is already aware, ChrisO started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka. Of our 1000 plus admins, why is Elonka the one to involve herself in this? I am requesting arbitration because we have an unusually divisive dispute amongst the community ~~administrators~~, and prior attempts at dispute resolution only seem to have inflamed the situation. At least 31 editors have called for Elonka to resign or stand for reconfirmation.

My concerns about Elonka's administrator access are threefold:

There is colorable evidence of poor administrative judgment by Elonka, as documented at the RFC, including highly contentious applications of discretionary sanctions. We administrators have been told many times not to use sysop tools in controversial ways. If this were the only problem, feedback to Elonka would probably be sufficient; however, due to the next two reasons, feedback does not seem to be a realistic strategy.
Elonka has suppressed criticism of her actions, rather than responding to the substance. On two occasions she has sought to have RFC's about herself deleted. (See comment by Athaenara.) (See deletion review discussion which followed an apparent out of process deletion by User:Thebainer). If an RFC is totally inappropriate, somebody besides the subject will notice and arrange for the page to be deleted.
Elonka has attempted to intimidate critics with spurious accusations of obsession, harassment and stalking.[5] I've written an essay, Don't cry wolf about this sort of behavior, which has been evident in at least one other case recently examined by the committee.

I think it will be beneficial for Wikipedia if the committee reviews the actions of all parties, including myself, and provides feedback. The committee may also clarify principles that could be used to help avoid or resolve other disputes, such as how to employ discretionary sanctions in contentious disputes, how to respond to criticism, and how to differentiate legitimate criticism from harassment.

This request for arbitration follows close on the heels of a prior request. Normally that might not be appropriate; however, the Committee specifically stated that the prior request was not framed correctly, and that they might entertain another request. ~~I was going to let this matter drop, except that with Elonka instigating against ChrisO, dropping it does not seem possible.~~ Arbitration will hopefully prevent a long-festering dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 07:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to support ChrisO's proposed resolution (disengagement), and withdraw this request in the interest of conserving the Committee's time. ChrisO's concerns take precedence, as far as I am concerned. If, however, there is a consensus to have a case, I will take Jpgordon's advice and put together a new statement. Jehochman ^Talk 21:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Erachima

Please forgive any lapse in ArbCom protocol I may commit by making this post, as I am a user with no involvement in this dispute or particular knowledge of either party, but I have to chime in here.

This filing is based entirely on two diffs, one of which is a reply that User:Elonka made to an IP editor on Jimbo's talkpage, and the other of which is a crossposting of that post to User talk:ChrisO. User:Jehochman is claiming that this single statement qualifies as "instigation to desysop ChrisO".

If you read the post in question, however, you'll see that it's actually a civilly worded explanation of why ChrisO does not need desysopped, followed by a description of the proper dispute resolution process when you have complaints about an admin's behaviour. This was written in reply to a claim by an IP user that ChrisO should have his admin privileges revoked for a questionable page protection from some months ago.[6]

In summary, this filing appears to be based on a severe misunderstanding, and should probably be withdrawn. --erachima talk 09:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mathsci

I am not sure that Jonathan's [Jehochman] request for arbitration was couched in quite the right terms. Issues of a fairly general nature concerning the role of administrators have arisen in the discussions on Elonka's talk page and in her RfC which do need to be addressed. With all respect to Jonathan, I do not think he has succeeded in making an adequate presentation of these in his request. I do not agree that Elonka was advising the IP editor about how to proceed with desysopping. However, I think that the issues raised in the RfC and on Elonka's talk page are important and should be straightened out. This might involve clarifying why it is advisable:

to differentiate between single purpose civil POV-pushers and good general contributors of long standing;
always to bear in mind that adding good or expert content is harder and counts far more than occasional minor lapses in civility;
not to become rigidly bogged down in civility issues, when it is clear that there are difficult and thorny problems of content at stake;
not to misrepresent a consensus amongst good faith editors as a conspiracy or tag team;
not to shun the advice of other experienced wikipedia administrators in case of error.

These points mostly apply to articles that are very special to wikipedia, in other words articles that would usually find no place in a standard modern encyclopedia. Often these involve controversial or fringe subjects. In more conventional articles, it is usually clear that there is a problem with POV-pushers when major differences start to emerge between a wikipedia article and its counterpart on the Encyclopedia Britannica. I doubt that the particular issues above would receive a proper airing were this RFAR to be accepted. Mathsci (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WJBscribe

This request is founded on a gross misrepresentation by Jehochman, for which he should be ashamed. Jehochman describes this post as "Elonka has begun instigating for the desysopping" when far from encouraging the IP editor, Elonka says that the matter is stale and that ChrisO has not abused his admin tools since, saying that even if he has the dispute resolution process should be followed. He has now amended that [7] to say "Elonka has been advising an IP editor who hopes for the desysopping of User:ChrisO". Her advice seems to be that there is no case no for a desysop and that if there were abuses, the first step would be discuss it with him. Her comments seem designed to dissuade, not encourage, the IP from pursuing the matter. Jehochman seems determined to place a negative spin on any comment by Elonka - I think a fairer characterisation of the comment would be "Elonka has dissuaded an IP editor who hoped for the desysopping of User:ChrisO"... The rest of the complaint is rather one sided - failing to mention the many editors who have supported Elonka's actions at the RfC and the 50 editors who have opposed her recall. The RfC and recall attempt has established that Elonka's actions are not universally popular - as the Committee is aware, opinions on how best to deal with disputes about contentions articles have always differed. No administrator is ever going to have 100% approval for their actions, nor are they required to maintain the high threshold needed to pass RfA - some of our finest are on record as saying they do not believe they could pass an RfA a second time. I think the Committee should reject this request - like it's predecessor reqest, no evidence of administrator abuse is given. Were this to be accepted however, I urge ArbCom to look at the conduct of all involved parties as it always does. I would be presenting evidence that Jehochman has been taking an unhealthy interest in Elonka's actions as an administrator and that he frequently makes comments that undermine her ability to act effectively as an administrator. I urge him in any event to desist from that behaviour.

Statement by GRBerry

There are some related disputes among administrators that could merit review, but they are very different from the way this case is framed. I'd classify them as 1) whether the novel sanctions imposed under ArbComm discretionary sanction remedies on two pages are a good idea to continue for those pages/use again in the future - community and administrative opinion here is mixed and 2) how to handle individual situations that neither the committee nor the community has reached agreement on. (I have one specific one in mind, there probably are others - but we'd need a different case anyway with the relevant parties for that situation involved.)

As an editor/administrative conduct case, I don't think this is worth the committee's time. Certainly none of the named parties is perfect, but all in all their conduct is not as problematic as that of most of the administrator parties to this case that the committee appears incapable of dealing with. I generally agree with WJBScribe's comment as well - and I know that he has been trying to review and patch their disagreement far more than I have. In the current example Jehochman appears to have started this off by assuming bad faith about Elonka, and probably needs to come to a realization that he lacks sound judgement where she is concerned. GRBerry 13:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ChrisO

I have to admit I'm a bit surprised by this arbitration request; I honestly don't think it's necessary, at least between myself and Elonka. Jehochman is correct that she intervened after an IP editor made a frankly bogus complaint about "admin abuse" on my part. (The short story is that back in February, two IP editors were edit-warring on Template:Countries of Europe; I semi-protected it, they resumed as soon as semi-protection expired, Ckatz re-semi-protected it, they resumed again, I semi-protected it again for a longer period. Nothing improper or exceptional about that. The IP editor who made the complaint seems to have done so maliciously after I argued on the talk page against his view that South Ossetia and Abkhazia shouldn't be added to the template yet.)

Elonka was unwise in not calling out obvious bullshit, was wrong about the background (and didn't bother to ask me for my side of the story) and was certainly unwise in intervening directly, when it was bound to be seen as a form of retaliation for the RfC that I filed concerning her. However, while I see this as yet another example of the poor judgment that I and others have documented in the RfC, I don't believe any useful purpose can be served by an arbitration. The most sensible course of action would simply be for the two of us - and possibly the three of us if the same situation applies to Jehochman - to disengage: for each of us to avoid articles where the other(s) are active, not to intervene for or against each other, not to comment further on each other's actions and generally avoid situations that might lead to further conflict. As Jehochman rightly says, there are 1,000+ admins on Wikipedia: there is really no need for the three of us to get in each others' way. An arbitration would most likely come to the same conclusion, but surely it's not necessary for the committee to tell the three of us what should be obvious anyway. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to 6SJ7's comments: the point is a simple one - any action that any of us takes concerning the others runs the risk of being seen as feuding, retaliation etc. We can see this happening already where a fresh wave of editors has endorsed Jehochman's earlier recall request, accusing Elonka of "retaliating" against me on Jimbo's talk page. For the record, I don't interpret her action that way. But that's why I said we needed to mutually disengage - precisely because of such perceptions and the conflict they can cause, not just between the three of us but with the wider community as well. That absolutely doesn't mean that any of us should be immune from the usual standards of conduct. It's simply that, with 1,000+ admins, there's no pressing reason why the three of us, personally, should be the ones doing the enforcing on each other. If any of us feel that there are problems with our actions in future, let others deal with that. We don't have to do that ourselves, and given our mutual history, people won't see us as objective or unbiased if we continue to intervene against each other. It'll just be seen as feuding and that does nobody any good. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moreschi

More or less what ChrisO says. Reject, please. There are virtually no grounds for a "ChrisO" RFAR, and nor for a "Jehochman" RFAR. Nor, really, are there grounds at the moment for an "Elonka" RFAR. Based on recent conversations with Elonka, I am hopeful that the the regrettable incidents that led to the RFC are now a thing of the past, and we can move forward from here towards a better encyclopaedia in many different areas. Certainly, though, it will be necessary for all three to stay out of each others' way for a good while. Moreschi (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 6SJ7

It almost goes without saying that this case should be rejected for the reasons that others have stated. However, I have to comment about something in ChrisO's statement. He calls for Elonka and himself to "disengage" and to "avoid articles where the other(s) are active, not to intervene for or against each other, not to comment further on each other's actions..." I cannot help but notice that this would have the same result that ChrisO has unsuccessfully sought through other means (including the pending RfC, at least one article talk page and Elonka's talk page), and that is to render Elonka incapable of sanctioning ChrisO (or warning him, commenting on his conduct, etc.) in the articles where ChrisO's behavior has been problematic. Obviously Elonka may decide, at any time, that she has had enough of all this. But if she chooses to stand her ground, I don't think she should be pressured to cease administrative activities which, as I have said elsewhere, have been a net benefit for the project. 6SJ7 (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to ChrisO's response to my statement: If the "disengagement" were to be accomplished in the right way, it could be of benefit. In the case of articles in which one you has been involved as an "uninvolved" administrator and the other has been involved as an editor, the one who has been involved as an editor should withdraw from the article -- regardless of who "got there first." That way, the "disengagement" could be accomplished while preserving the value of the administrative interventions by a truly neutral administrator. I do not know of any articles in which ChrisO has served as an uninvolved administrator, and Elonka has edited, though there may be some -- but I do know of some articles in which Elonka has been an uninvolved administrator, and which ChrisO has edited. One of them is the article that led to the RfC. A disengagement on those terms would be a good thing. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/1/3)

Recuse. --bainer (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. 'An unusually divisive dispute among administrators' does not mean that two or more administrators are very annoyed with each other over their behaviour. It means a dispute over how administrative issues should be handled. Elonka is entitled to bring up good faith concerns over ChrisO's actions and I see neither evidence nor claim that she has engaged in harassment of him. The request repeats aspects of the previous rejected case which could have been accepted minus the recall aspect if it merited consideration, but was instead rejected. Seeking to have an improperly certified RFC deleted is in accordance with established policy. There is nothing in this request which demonstrates failure to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note on previous recusal (Sam Blacketer)
I have not recused on this case, although I recused on the previous case. This was because it revolved around the issue of Elonka's response to the recall petition and I had privately advised her, before the case, on what she might do about it. I have not committed myself and prejudged any issue in this case and therefore no recusal is necessary.

Waiting for more comments before I decide whether to accept the case. And if I do, it will be to review the conduct of all involved editors/admins, especially the named involved parties. FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. It took approximately thirty seconds for me to look at the diffs Jehochman provides in his first sentence, recognize what a misunderstanding and/or misinterpretation of their content Jehochman provided, and decide not to read any further. Please withdraw this case; if people want an arbitration case involving Elonka, it shouldn't be that hard to put together a case that neither depends on ArbCom turning non-policy into policy, nor on misinterpretations of completely innocuous and proper evaluations of stale minor offenses. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am somewhere between FloNight's and Jpgordon's positions. The specific issue raised in this request for arbitration is a minor one and would not warrant a case. But I am also aware, from the Bishonen's recent request and others, of broader issues in the background. I express no view on whether I would vote to accept that case, nor whether this request should morph into that one or whether a bit more time should be allowed to see if tensions can ease on their own. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A note that I'm waiting, as per Flo and Brad. James F. (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Anachronist		16 June 2024	0/5/0
Rio Grande 223		19 June 2024	0/3/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Block of Rp2006	21 June 2024

Current requests

Request for clarification: Steve Crossin, Chet B Long, PeterSymonds, and inappropriate account sharing discussion link

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

NonvocalScream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Steve Crossin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by NonvocalScream

Deskana stated that the committee is considering Steve's position, but not the administrators, the community may deal with those. The community has thus far found no sanctions are needed on any of the three. FT2 stated that the committee may may still sanction Steve for his problematic edits. If the committee wishes to sanction when the community has chosen not to, may we:

Know the nature of the problomatic edits?

Have a public case filed on the arb pages?

Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flonight: Thank you for the fast response; May the committee inform the community of the evidence, perhaps the community can participate, given the feeling on the AN discussion thread, I believe this would be most helpful. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flonight: For me to rephrase. May we participate in the decision making process on this? NonvocalScream (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

I question the provision of your decision that prohibits PeterSymonds and Chet B Long from regaining the tools via normal RFA. The community is in a good position to weigh the seriousness of this situation. On general principle it's better for the Committee to entrust such sysopping to the community's wisdom unless compelling reason exists that the community could not make an informed decision. Durova^Charge! 07:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deskana: yes, please. Considering the confusion that arose over Shoemaker's Holiday, in light of the MONGO and Alkivar precedents, it would certainly be good to amend the decision and make it clear. Less drama for everybody. :) Durova^Charge! 04:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon: Yes, please see my exchange with Deskana. Durova^Charge! 00:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Newyorkbrad, yes we are requesting that the two administrators who resigned their tools be allowed to run RFA. Under the current decision they are not permitted to do so, and the arbitrator who wrote the decision that way atates that this part of the wording was unintentional and he'd be glad to change it. Please do. Durova^Charge! 05:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ned Scott

Arbcom does not have the authority to place restrictions on Steve at this time. They are attempting to circumvent the community's right to handle this situation. It was this kind of behavior that lead us to question ArbCom's authority at the recent RfC. -- Ned Scott 08:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to Deskana: ArbCom is here for when we've tried everything we can to handle it ourselves, but can't. I understand going to arbcom right away when it involves admin bits, but Steve is a normal user. Please, let us deal with this. While some people are upset about what has happened, there is no urgency here that would justify cutting the community out of this. -- Ned Scott 20:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to FloNight: You say "In the end, the Committee and Steve both agreed that prompt action would be better than a long drawn out public case. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)"

This is incorrect. Steve was pressured into accepting this because he believed it was his only option, and feared the committee banning him indefinitely. ArbCom shouldn't even be considering a case at this point. This is something for the community to decide. Arbcom is bulling/blackmailing Steve and his wife into this "agreement", and you should be ashamed of yourself for it. -- Ned Scott 00:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~To reply to Synergy: When I'm hearing this from Steve's mouth, then no, I'm not misinformed. -- Ned Scott 08:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

"Ned, you appear to be misinformed. The discussion was moving towards a positive sanction in which Steve had agreed to" Nonsense is bolded. -- Ned Scott 08:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Steve's request, I'm dropping this issue.

I would like to apologies to the committee for some of my comments here. While I still believe this is a situation that the community should handle, Steve's fear of being banned is not the fault of the committee. -- Ned Scott 09:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ral315

Note that Steve has apparently taken a wikibreak, which renders questions over his ability to attain the tools moot for the time being. That's not to say that the question shouldn't be considered, but that the final decision need not be made hastily now that the issue has been brought publicly. Ral315 (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Synergy

Ned, you appear to be misinformed. The discussion was moving towards a positive sanction in which Steve had agreed to. It was interrupted by an additional notice from arbitration. While I'd like to see Steve in a comfortable spot to edit, this might not be possible. This has been over for some time now, and I'd like to suggest that you let this go.

I'd like to also echo Durova. I too, am eager to see a statement with respect to Peter and Chet. Synergy 08:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ned, much of this began with hearing things come out of Steve's mouth. My comments are directed toward your assessment of the AN thread, not off wiki conversations. Regards. Synergy 08:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ned: Thank you for re factoring, I do appreciate the tone down. But its not nonsense. Here is the diff where he agreed to the proposal/sanction made by Seddon. Please ask yourself this: Is any of this helping Steve? If the answer is no, then please take my aforementioned suggestion. Regards. Synergy 08:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To jpgordon: Yes. We are still awaiting further clarification on the reapplication of the two former admins. Synergy 17:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Giggy

I agree with Durova. Please consider her proposal. We, the community, are not buffoons, and we can make these decisions. —Giggy 08:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MBisanz

The circumstances of Peter and Chet's re-confirmation RFA I have no feelings on. To address Ned Scott's point, I propose a test. Someone hardblock's Steve's account for 6 months. Then we get to test how many sysops feel it is worth putting their bit on the line to unblock him and also how long it takes arbcom to find a steward to desysop someone for violating their finding. In any case, Steve let AGK put the wikibreak enforcer in his monobook and Steve could very easily overcome it or post to his user talk:Steve Public page, so these offsite issues of being pressured are rather pointless, heck even if they were on-site, I'm still wondering how many people find Steve to be trustworthy enough to believe anything he says. MBisanz ^talk 08:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Orderinchaos

For the record I think the two former administrators have paid the penalty for their chronic lapse of judgement and that to say they resigned under a cloud should be sufficient, such that the community can decide if they decide to reapply at some future point. The Committee are obviously privy to information we aren't, but I was led to believe from the evidence presented that Peter's was initially logged into without his permission or knowledge, although the situation appears to have changed after that time. Orderinchaos 22:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Of course the Committee will give the Community reasons if we give sanctions. The Committee's job is to throughly collect all importance evidence, examine it all, and then have each arbitrator vote. We make a preliminary notice because it was important for the Community to be aware of the events. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment. The Committee went public with the announcement before we were finished with our discussion because of ongoing issues forced a comment. We knew that some people in the community knew and some didn't know about the account sharing, the desysops, and the Committee's investigation. At that point we felt a prompt statement was needed to the whole Community. The full Committee has not finished the discussion and voted. We will keep the Community updated as we make decisions. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Arbitration Committee decides when to accept cases and when to reject them. The Committee was approached by a non arbitrator checkuser with results that showed serious evidence of user account abuse, including administrator account sharing. The administrators resigned their tools. The administrators account sharing was coupled with other incidents of problematic behavior by one of the users before and after the check that indicated problems with trust could continue. This needed prompt action as well since real life issues were intermixed with the on site problems. There was public and private comments made by the Community, and these were taken into consideration, including requests to delay a finding or allow the Community to determine the sanctions. In the end, the Committee and Steve both agreed that prompt action would be better than a long drawn out public case. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have forged a decision that we are happy with, but must wait for a few addition Arbitrators to confirm. --Deskana (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Durova: That was not actually intentional. I was the one that drafted the message that was placed on the administrators noticeboard, and I didn't exclude their ability to reapply through RFA intentionally... I just happened not to think to include it. If you wish, I could ask if the Committee would be happy with amending the statement to include their ability to reapply through RFA. I've certainly not got a problem with them doing so, but I can't speak for the other Arbitrators. --Deskana (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Scott: Why not? That was exactly why we were created. I indicated that in my statement that the community could discuss its own sanctions if it wished to, but that the Arbitration Committee was also discussing its own. At the time, it seemed unlikely that we would agree on any additional sanctions. Things have changed since then. --Deskana (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything else that needs doing here? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was travelling last weekend and missed almost all of the discussion when these events were unfolding. The steps taken appear to be generally reasonable although I have not studied up on the fine points. I am not sure whether any further action is being requested at this point. Is it? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to do anything further; it's now clear how the meaning of the wording, though perhaps ambiguous, was intended. James F. (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for appeal: PHG

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

User:PHG (initiator)
User:Elonka (notified [8])
User:Jehochman (notified [9])
User:Abd (notified [10])
User:Eupator (notified [11])
User:Angusmclellan (notified [12])

Statement by PHG

I, User:PHG, would like to respectfully ask the Comity to lift the sanctions I have been submitted to since March 2008, on the basis of (1) Good conduct during time served (entering the 6th month now) (2) Revelations of controversial behaviour on the part of my primary accusers (3) Reassertion of my good faith throughout these proceedings.

1) Good conduct during time served.

I believe I have properly followed the Arbcom’s edit restrictions (no edits in Ancient History and Medieval areas etc...) during the 6 months served (on a total of one year), a fact even recognized recently by Elonka [13].
I used this time to continue my contributions to Wikipedia in an intensive way, as encouraged by the Comity, creating from scratch major articles on cultural interactions, as well as numerous sub-articles, outside of my edit restrictions: France-Thailand relations, France-Japan relations (19th century), Siamese revolution (1688), Japan-Thailand relations, Siege of Bangkok etc…
As requested, I refrained from engaging in lengthy disputes on Talk Pages, even when some behaviour seemed outrageous and illegitimate to me (such as removing important referenced material from articles): [14], [15].
A good consequence of this Arbcom ruling is that I have been able to further improve the quality of my contributions and sourcing. I’ve been working very positively with a mentor User:Angusmclellan for the validation of my foreign language sources or obscure English-language ones.

2) Revelations of controversial behaviour on the part of my primary accusers.

During my Arbcom proceedings I regularly complained about Elonka’s implacable harassment, systematic mis-characterization of my edits etc… At the time, this was simply a matter between Elonka and me, but since then Elonka has been met by a huge amount of similar complaints from numerous independent users and Administrators, to the point that she was requested to honour her pledge to step down as Administrator (a pledge she will apparently not respect anyway, creating further doubts about her ethical conduct): User talk:Elonka#Recall Proposal, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka. In any case, her behaviour has proven to be extremely controversial, and I believe it has been central in misrepresenting my editorial contributions and influencing the decision of the Arbcom. Finally, although the Arbcom had requested Elonka to refrain from pursuing me after the Arbcom decision was taken, she has continued to stalk/ harass me nonetheless [16].

In respect to Elonka’s apparent supporters, claims of Wikipedia:Tag teaming have also been made: Wikipedia talk:Tag team#Ironic. Elonka is also known to sollicitate support off-Wiki for her on-Wiki battles: ([17], [18]), a fact which I and other users suspect is quite systematic in her case. By doing so, Elonka unfairly manages to obtain the appearance of Community support in her disputes with others.

User:Jehochman, who initiated this Arbcom case against me, also has displayed quite alarming behaviour, recently being described as “if he was not an Administrator he would be called a vandal” and a “harasser” in his current drama with former ally Elonka Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall#The admin recall process is dead (WP:AN)

I would like to leave behind any animosity towards Elonka or Jehochman for their actions against me, and I wish to reconcile with them, but I am asking the Arbitration Comity to take into account these revelations about the problematic behaviour of my main accusers, redress this unfair situation I have been put in, and free me from the effects of their abuse.

3) Reassertion of my good faith

I solemnly reaffirm that all my edits have always been done in good faith, as already kindly recognized by the Arbcom. I am no professional historian, but all my references have always been taken from proper published sources. I may have been quite enthousiastic for the subject of the Franco-Mongol alliance, looking for every bit of scholarly confirmation or every little bit of information on the existence of the alliance, but I never intentionally misrepresented sources, neither has it ever been shown (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence/Shell Kinney Sources Table), (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Franco-Mongol_alliance/Workshop#Response_to_Elonka_by_PHG). When several editors band together to make this sort of accusations however it gives the overall impression that indeed there must be something awefully wrong with the attacked editor, and this can clearly sway an Arbcom decision.

Overall I am a good-faith editor who is fascinated by the subjects he writes about, and is maybe slightly over-enthusiastic about documenting them. I am extremely proud to have brought to light and documented such little-known subjects as the Franco-Mongol alliance, Indo-Greek Kingdom, History of Buddhism, Boshin War , Imperial Japanese Navy, France-Thailand relations etc... I document extensively all I write, and no, I don't misrepresent sources, or when it is perceived to be so, it is certainly not intentional and only a mistake on my part.

In a nutshell, I believe my accusers have unfairly harassed and misrepresented my actions to obtain this Arbcom ruling, and such suspicion of undue behaviour has been hugely reinforced with Elonka's current similar disputes on a large scale with other users. I have however complied the best I could to the Arbcom resolution showing an example of good conduct. All my edits have always been done in good faith, and I believe this dispute has at least helped me improve in editorial and sourcing quality. In consequence, I request the Comity to rehabilitate me and now lift the edit restrictions against me. Regards PHG (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Blacketer has kindly provided a list of the findings of the Arbcom regarding my alledged use of the sources (Report on use of sources). I am thankfull that this at last provides an opportunity to discuss about facts rather then just accusations. However, besides the kind recognition that I never ever made up any reference, and that all my quotes have all proven to be exact, all the other findings are extremely weak and seem to rely on wrong interpretations or translations. I am quite amazed that such a severe Arbcom ruling can be passed with such little or faulty evidence. I respectfully ask the Arbitrators to read this list and my response to it, and reconsider. Best regards PHG (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

The conduct of other people is immaterial to User:PHG's sanctions. All the allegations concerned PHG's editing were independently checked and those that were confirmed were incorporated into the arbitration decision. Any rancor exhibited by third parties towards myself or Elonka has no bearing on PHG. The current situation, where PHG has a mentor, seems to be beneficial, and should be continued. I think that if a mentor is in place, PHG could be allowed to edit any article in the encyclopedia, so long as the mentor is checking edits to confirm that past problems are not resuming. Jehochman ^Talk 19:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elonka

With respect, I disagree with PHG's assessment, and I think it's best if the Committee declines this request for appeal. Though PHG has been editing within his restrictions, I have seen nothing from him to indicate that he even understands the problems that caused the sanctions from the previous ArbCom case. Also, we still aren't even done with the cleanup of the articles that he already affected. PHG might benefit from participating at the talkpages of the articles still requiring cleanup, to assist with their repair. That would be the best way that he could prove that he had turned over a new leaf, and was able to work in a collegial manner within that topic area. In the meantime, it is my belief that the sanctions are doing their job of protecting the project (as well as protecting PHG from further blocks or bans), and should be kept in place. --El on ka 19:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JJB

Just claiming my place in queue. I affirm PHG in his request for restrictions to be removed on the grounds I stated in the last request for clarification, namely, that no specific allegations against PHG were reported as confirmed by ArbCom; only a general affirmation of the validity of the allegations against him was offered. JJB 21:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

PHG recently earned the 50DYK medal. He earns my thanks his dedication. Based upon PHG's contributions I was on the verge of supporting this motion, but am troubled by the selection and presentation of his claims regarding individuals who participated in the arbitration case. He mentions that Jehochman reconciled with Elonka about her recall pledge, but not that Jehochman initiated the recall motion itself. Nor does he mention that the recent noticeboard complaint against Jehochman was generally dismissed as meritless. I am grateful to be spared a role in the allegation. Unfortunately PHG's construction of that argument bears resemblance to the chief problem that led to his restriction: a tendency to selectively gather and present data that supports a given thesis, and including dubious evidence in support of that thesis while excluding strong evidence against it. Had PHG weighed my role in the Elonka recall movement, it really would not be possible to allege a unified conspiracy or cabal. For the record, I discovered this motion while reading my watchlist and haven't discussed it with anyone. My completely independent opinion is to let the current remedy stand. With respect, Durova^Charge! 23:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shell Kinney

I would also like to congratulate PHG for the recent 50DYK medal; I truly believe he is an excellent contributor and we appreciate all his efforts. However, comments as recent as this and this indicate that PHG has not resolved the concerns that brought us here - he has an unfortunate tendency to only give information which supports his position, even if that requires taking information out of context, skewing it to mean something completely different or ignoring obvious facts to the contrary. As shown in the diffs, PHG still asserts that he "refuted" all claims that he misrepresented sources and that there were no problems with his behavior, instead, he again focuses on Elonka and "attackers" as the reason the case went against him. This doesn't mean that anyone assumes bad faith of his contributions, but there is obviously a blind spot here and one severe enough that it needs watching if he's unable to recognize and resolve the issue on his own. Shell ^babelfish 00:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Abd

The Committee continued to assume good faith on the part of PHG, however, it found misrepresentation of sources and reactions to questioning. The errors in sourcing could be within what would be normal for a knowledgeable editor with opinions and a massive corpus of articles created, and did not represent willful distortion; hence my conclusion was that the essential problem was with civility, and when civility is the problem, it is rarely one-sided. In following the enforcement of the ban, I saw incivility and personal attack and possible harassment directed against PHG; each incident was a provocation which could have ended his Wikipedia career. While the behavior of others should not excuse poor behavior by him, it is also true that normal human beings will react to incivility with incivility, and identifying a "guilty party" often misses what really happened. I would not have advised PHG to file this Arbitration alone, and I would not have advised him to make the behavior of other editors an issue, but I also understand why he did, and his appeal should not be rejected on that basis. I would have encouraged him to try to work out alternative methods of satisfying the concerns of the community, and gather some support for them, before proceeding with an appeal. As an example, he's been required to use sources in English, a requirement that we do not place on other editors. Nevertheless, the requirement is an attempt to answer a real concern: how can we verify that he has accurately represented the sources? I have found it common in certain areas that sources are cited which are difficult to verify, even when they are in English, because the publications may not be readily accessible. We normally accept such sources, assuming good faith on the part of the editor. In a civil environment, solutions to the problem can be found. If there is mistrust and blame, it can be very difficult. PHG could, for example, scan an obscure source and make it available for review; translators could be found to confirm his translations; we could actively consult with experts as well. His content is well worth the effort. I recommend that the topic ban be lifted, provided that PHG continue to work with a mentor or mentors; he should receive advice not only with his use of sources, but also in how to find a productive consensus with the community. Further, whenever the Committee puts an editor under civility restrictions, it is incumbent on the Committee and the community to specially protect the editor from provocation. I saw the ArbComm sanctions against him misrepresented frequently as if the Committee had found him guilty of massive distortion of sources, which was not the case. Errors can be fixed, provided that civility and cooperation is established and maintained. Let's not inhibit this valuable editor; instead, lets help him and others cooperate more effectively. His critics can be very useful, they will restrain his "enthusiasm," by making sure that his sources are checked and that he does not draw unwarranted conclusions from them, and, if we are careful to maintain a constructive environment, the project can only benefit. --Abd (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Orderinchaos

The original ArbCom was in response to some quite egregious behaviour which seriously undermined the credibility of Wikipedia in some of the areas in which the appellant edited, and they have never actually acknowledged to be wrong - instead trying to blame everyone else involved in the process. I don't think there are any matters for ArbCom to consider here. Orderinchaos 03:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Angus McLellan

The short version:

I do not agree with Fayssal as to exactly what the mentorship remedy says,
I do not feel that the remedies should be lifted at this time.

I said to Elonka and PHG here, about a month ago, that "I would be happier if PHG would ask advice in all cases, and especially before submitting DYKs" and that the decision to separate the two parts of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#PHG is required to provide a means for the Community to verify his sources. by and/or rather than and was not helpful. Fayssal seems to be reading things in the remedy which I don't see ("you are required to use sources that are in English and widely available" is missing the "or ask your mentor" part). Because of the and/or, that's not the remedy which I think I'm helping to implement, and it's not what PHG thinks I'm doing. Perhaps this could be clarified?

Elonka raised questions about two of PHG's new articles in July: here (regarding Shanhai Yudi Quantu) and here (regarding Cheonhado). Also regarding Cheonhado, see Elonka's opposition to the original DYK nom here. To me, the problem with the hook suggests that PHG still has to work on following WP:V closely. I appreciate the difficulty of writing hooks dealing with obscure topics which meet the relevant content policies and are interesting as well, but DYK hooks do not need to be sensational. My experience is that they don't even need to be especially interesting.

As regards the restriction on editing ancient and medieval articles in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#PHG restricted, I have only looked at one of the articles PHG mentions, Indo-Greek Kingdom. I do not see that PHG has yet entirely resolved the problems of sourcing which were seen there. For example, Mathsci commented (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#Statement by Mathsci) regarding Siamese revolution (1688). This relies heavily on published editions of primary source materials and it is in no way clear whether it is the primary source which is being relied upon or the accompanying editorial apparatus. For example, in the Siamese Revolution piece, we read: "It is generally considered that Desfarges could have eliminated the conspiracy at this point if he had pursued his mission towards Lopburi ...". This is referenced to Smithies' Three military accounts of the 1688 "Revolution" in Siam, but it is not apparent whether this comes from one of the military accounts or from Smithies' commentary on the accounts. [And even if it came from Smithies himself, why does the word "generally" appear?] This sort of referencing is only useful to someone who has the cited source in front of them, and that is hardly likely to the case here as Worldcat shows. I am sure PHG could do better, and did do rather better at Siege of Bangkok. Given the problem seen here, I do not think that lifting this remedy would be in the best interest of PHG or the project as whole at this time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Fayssal and Brad for clearing things up for me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tim Vickers

PHG's edits frequently distorted and misrepresented sources, as documented and discussed extensively at the Franco-Mongol alliance article. I am not confident that his tendency to bend sources to fit with pre-conceived views has ended, so I'd recommend keeping this remedy as it stands. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

While waiting for the input of the mentor... This remedy was very explicit PHG. It sets a limit which is a year and not six months though this is less important here since ArbCom may respond positively to such a request depending on the circumstances. But your request above got a few flaws. a) you are required to use sources that are in English and widely available -- you say your mentor assists you for the "validation of your foreign language sources or obscure English-language ones." b) one of your statements above includes diffs to admins' issues elsewhere; which are irrelevant to the case at hand. Remember that we are dealing with articles' sourcing. c) spending no more than 5 weeks (since July 17th) with a mentor is not enough. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 20:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Angus McLellan, the "or ask your mentor" is not missing. The point is that PHG says that he consults you in validating both foreign language sources (a good thing) and obscure ones(!) -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 23:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Want to hear from the mentor before I comment. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm reading the statements as they come in. I'm still waiting for a few more, from user's that were notified, before I comment. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Based on the above statements, it is best for the remedy to be unchanged for now. The meaning of the remedy was clarified in the past. PGH can either use English sources that are easily available for most editors to review or PHG can consult with his mentor about using sources that are not easily for most editors to view. If the mentor and PHG agree that the reference is appropriate, then it can be used in a particular instance. PHG is not limited to choosing one approach or the other globally, but can decide in each instance which is the best approach. FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally like to see a longer track record of working with a mentor before I will support modifying this remedy. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, would not be comfortable with waiving or altering the remedies at this point. James F. (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too early to modify. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was the scrivener of the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. As I stated in that decision, we continued to assume the good faith of User:PHG, and I continue to do so today. However, the extent to which PHG had overstated or mis-cited the contents of sources used in articles raised serious issues concerning whether his article contributions were adding verifiable and reliable content to Wikipedia, particularly in articles on relatively abstruse historical topics that were unlikely to attract much scholarly attention from other editors. Contrary to the suggestion in the current request, the Arbitration Committee did not simply accept the word of petitioning editors such as Elonka and Jehochman that a problem existed, but arbitrators actually read through some of the cited sources to compare them with the uses that PHG was making of them, and verified that the problems were real. I trust that PHG can understand, and would appreciate if he would acknowledge, that a problem existed. To assure myself that the problem has been alleviated, would require a mentor or another user with relevant expertise to spot-check some of PHG's more recent articles on comparable subjects to confirm that sources are now being used appropriately and cited accurately for propositions that the cited works, taken as a whole, fairly support. To date, this showing has not been made and therefore I regretfully join in the decision not to modify the sanction at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why the remedies in the case should not continue to take their course. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note the Report on use of sources in this case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]