Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kittybrewster (talk | contribs) at 14:06, 7 May 2009 (→‎Statement by Kittybrewster). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Active editnotice

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

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:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland Motion (orig. case) 21 June 2024
Clarification request: Noleander none (orig. case) 3 July 2024
Amendment request: Durova Motion (orig. case) 4 July 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Mattisse

Initiated by Karanacs (talk) at 18:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Karanacs

I'm filing this as a response to the latest filing about Mattisse's activity. Although Mattisse can be an excellent content contributor and article reviewer (at GAN and FAC), her behavior at times is disruptive. At her most recent RfC (January), she was asked to refrain from making allegations of bad faith, to stop misrepresenting other editors' comments, to stop disrupting processes such as DYK, GAN, FAC, FAR, RfA, to stop making allegations of an FAC, FAR or other cabal that is out to get her, and to stop making personal attacks. Since then, she has been accused of many of these same behaviors at FAR (March) and at GAR (see ANI thread above), and she is still assuming bad faith [1] and compiling lists of people who she thinks are against her [2]. Patient engagement with the user is not getting anywhere in helping Mattisse to even understand that there could be a problem with her behavior, and I'm unsure what to do next to help Mattisse continue to make quality contributions without the lapses into disruption.

At this time, I'm not adding anyone else as a party, as this is more to address a pattern of behavior rather than a specific incident. Anyone who feels sufficiently involved is welcome to add to the list.

Statement by Mattisse

It is clear that there are many editors who wish to hurt me. They repeatedly bring up diffs that go back to 2006 when I started.

All I can offer is the wish that the Arbitration Committee actually look at the evidence that these editors have presented in the three RFC's that have been filed against me as proof that I am unfit for this project. I am not good at getting diffs and I cannot defend myself. I am very tired from the repeated accusations going back to 20 days after my first edit. The years have worn me down.

  1. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse
  2. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2
  3. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3

As well as looking at the evidence presented against me in the three RFCs, I wish that the Arbitration Committee would also look at my contributions to this project and weigh whether I am a net benefit or not. I cannot continue here if the past cannot be put away somehow. The constant accusations over three years have eroded my faith in my ability to carry on here. I am so very tired.

In every attempt I have made to communicate my side of the situation, I have made things worse. My good intentions end up being my enemy and give more evidence to those who wish to harm me. I admit that my behavior has deteriorated, as I truly am tired. I am intensely disliked by a frightening number of people here at Wikipedia, even those I have never heard of, and although I have worked hard for the project, I realize that it does not matter in the end and does not weigh in my favor. Rather, my passion and belief in the project have been my downfall. Therefore, whatever is decided is decided on the basis of the evidence in the three RFCs. I have nothing more in my defense but my work for the encyclopedia. If the evidence in those three RFCs weights against me, then I will accept a permanent ban as justice for the damage I have caused Wikipedia. Meanwhile, I will not be contributing to the encyclopedia until this is cleared up, one way or another. Thank you. Regards, ~ —Mattisse (Talk) 01:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Uninvolved) statement by Ceranthor

As Moni Karanacs (duh) noted above, there was an ANI thread, currently still open, about Mattisse's behavior. The current verdict seems to be absolutely nothing. The majority of the discussion has just been argument between the two parties, therefore I am not really sure how this started or how we will fix it. Then again, that's up to the Arbitrators. Ceranthor 20:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Uninvolved) statement by Synergy

Mattisse's contributions to these areas are duly noted, yet this cannot continue. I urge the committee to accept this case and to settle the matter before it continues to escalate. Synergy 20:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A block should not have been done by Tznkai. I think this was out of line and should have been handled by an uninvolved admin. Synergy 22:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by sort of involved Jennavecia

I was involved in the most recent incident and one in January. I am also listed as a plague on Mattisse's talk page. Thus, I also urge the committee to accept this case. Mattisse has done a great deal of work that has improved the project significantly. Unfortunately, she has a nasty habit of taking things way over the top, to the point that the comments she makes seem out of touch with reality. Ceranthor is apparently not up to speed on the history here, so I would ask that the committee look at the pattern, which is one that dates far back, and not focus on any one incident. The latest serves only as a recent example of a problem that Mattisse has become known for. لennavecia 20:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Either way

I, too, would like to see something done in regards to Mattisse since I appear on one of her apparent evidence "hit lists" here. either way (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by more involved Casliber

The Mattisse case may have a number of editors added who have been involved with adverse relations with her and where she has exhibited problematic conduct. These might include me (in a fairly major way), SandyGeorgia, Fainites (not sure the level), Giano (not sure how he would rate it), Cirt, Awadewit and Risker (actually could leave off the last two as minor and would make the scope of this unwieldy). All are similar with her becoming into conflict on some matter and then proceeding to make life difficult, at times with a level of paranoia and misintepretation which makes ongoing dialogue very difficult. I am not sure whether listing parties as involved is helpful to clarify the scope of her interpersonal problems or obfuscates the overall picture. Silktork, Lingnut and Durova have attempted to mediate, and then other old issues secondary have become entangled (eg Cirt and Jayen scientology). Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

I entered a statement at the most recent conduct RfC and attempted to smooth the waters a few times afterward. Last night I proposed an alternative solution in order to try to resolve this on the community level. As of this writing it has 5 supports, 3 opposes, and extensive discussion. Objections range from calls for no action at all to suggestions for a topic ban. Mattisse had literally invited me to propose a sanction minutes before: "Put restrictions on me, instead of all this whinning about no restrictions on me. Restrict me from FAC. Go ahead. Just stop this endless whinning over my behavior. If I am that bad, then get rid of me."[3] The proposal was the mildest I could craft and milder than Mattisse herself had suggested, yet very shortly after it went live Mattisse raised objections against it.

Although Mattisse has offered to withdraw from the disputed processes, she has made similar pledges multiple times in the past and in all instances has broken the pledge shortly afterward. When questioned about that, she replies that her return had been requested by other persons. Her input is often very insightful and constructive. Yet it appears that this editor is also exceptionally thin skinned: prone to perceive malicious intent in normal editorial discussion.

It is possible to both sincere and mistaken in one's perceptions. Trouble arises when the misunderstanding cannot be cleared up and instead spreads to new fora. This has been occurring at important content processes (GAC, peer review, etc.) and there's a danger of it driving away other useful contributors.

The community-based proposal currently has majority support but not clear consensus. Having proposed it seems to have gotten me added to her list of perceived foes even though it was done at her own request. If the Committee does not accept a case now, it is likely that more people will undergo the exhausting experience of trying to help and eventually getting spurned for their efforts. DurovaCharge! 21:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Intermittantly Involved Fainites

This situation is not improving. The disruption is wearing and has a chilling effect. The misrepresentations and assumptions of bad faith percieved by editors (including Mattisse) cause huge upset and bad feeling. I needs to be looked at by the uninvolved.Fainites barleyscribs 21:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That blocking (below) is a bit sudden given it's before ArbCom surely?Fainites barleyscribs 22:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tznkai

My involvement with Mattisse has been brief, but troubling, and seems indicative of overall problems

On March 18 I reverted a message on her talk page that deceptively attributed comments out of context as if they were made on her talk page, she responded by reverting with the edit summary "revertin unwaranted interference on my talk page merely to hid e evidence regrding another editor" at which point I reverted again (removing the comments properly this time), saying "Do not post comments authored by other users as if they had made them. This is disruptive and deceptive. The use of user talk pages is a privilege associated with constructive editing. Stop immediately" While she did desist, she decided to re add the comments to her talk page archives here and here. Even assuming good faith, this seems to be at best, missing the point, and worst, sneaky behavior. Furthermore and more troubling, in keeping these notes to her self, and with the current "plague" list on her page here, Mattise has displayed a battleground mentality incompatible with Wikipedia policy, practice, and goals.

Therefore, I suggest that the committee consider the possibility of disposing this by motion, simply banning Mattisse for some period of time for treating Wikipedia as a battleground. I honestly don't know why I or another administrator hasn't done so before we got here. I have nothing for or against her personally, and I hear she's a good contributor in a number of places, but Wikipedia is not a place for airing personal grudges. If you can't stop, you belong elsewhere.

--Tznkai (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update:

I've blocked Mattisse indefinitely for treating Wikipedia as a battleground as described above. I invite the Committee to confirm, modify, or overturn, but the problematic behavior was continuing in process, so this otherwise qualified as routine administrative action.--Tznkai (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I've made my reasoning insufficiently clear. In the time since this RfAr has been opened, Mattisse has continued to add comments to her Plague/Torment thread. That behavior is clearly against behavioral policy, in addition she has insisted that she was not going to participate here. Obviously, others disagree with my actions, and I have no problem with others undoing my block if they feel that my rationale was flawed, and I am willing to do it myself in a bit if requested.--Tznkai (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And unblocked.--Tznkai (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ottava Rima

As can be seen in a previous RfC, my opinions on the matter differ from most of the above. I am not posting to wage war, nor will I directly refute anything anyone else has stated. However, I believe that there are a lot of good people that, momentarily, are not looking at the situation in the right light. I am not Mattisse's friend, and I have been attacked by Mattisse more than most involved here, but I feel that this is inappropriate, and I feel that the ramifications of this case will be shameful enough that I do not want to even know of its existence as it unfolds. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Mattisse has never, for my knowledge, supported any of my FACs or anything that I have really been involved in. I have, more than most of those above, been in more situations that I could portray myself as the victim. However, I doubt this will put more weight behind my words for most involved. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lar

I'm on the plague list too. I don't know that there is much to add to what has been said before, except to comment to Tznkai in reply to "I honestly don't know why I or another administrator hasn't done so" (blocked Mattisse) "before we got here."... to me the answer is obvious, because everyone involved in this has bent over backwards to assume good faith about Mattisse. No one should be faulted for that! I think disposal by motion as Tznkai suggests, might be a way to avoid a long drawn out case and more hurt feelings. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tex

It seems things have degenerated enough for this case to be accepted. Placing a list of usernames under the heading of "Plague" on her userpage is not a very good way to encourage collaborative editing. I mentioned on the FAR talk page that I didn't know if all of her disruption should lead to a topic ban or not, but I definitely think something needs to be done now. - Tex (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wehwalt

I'm not going to take a position on this dispute, but I do think that Tznkai's action in indef blocking Mattisse was a little bit much. This matter is before this committee, it will certainly be accepted, and this committee will then act as it sees fit. I suggest that Tznkai's action is a bit premature and perhaps presumptuous (thank you, Spiro Agnew) and I suggest the committee vacate it without prejudice to its final determination.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jayen466

I found the attack on Mattisse at AN/I that precipitated this RFAR shameful, opportunistic and over the top, and have probably already made my view on this more clear than would have been necessary.

Mattisse reviewed two of my articles for GA (one passed, the other did not), and I remain immensely impressed by Mattisse's professional judgment, which seemed to me in an entirely different league. I have noticed the squabbles, and I have also noticed that there is a regular group of editors who cannot refrain from adding their ha'pennyworth of criticism of Mattisse whenever there is any evidence that there might be a chance of a fight. That dynamic is unhealthy.

More generally speaking, I also question the recurrent pattern of escalating disputes and then laying them at the arbcom's doorstep, bypassing steps such as mediation. Arbcom is a hammer, and a hammer is only ever good for one thing. Subtlety, or the building of mutual trust and rapport, is beyond it. I would have thought mediation might be a much more productive idea in the present case, if any of the parties feel a need. Failing that, pay Mattisse's opinions some respect; I have met few editors indeed whose only agenda appears to be encyclopedic integrity, or who are better able to work towards it. Jayen466 22:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malleus Fatuorum

I'm on Mattise's plague list as as well, or as she now calls it a "torment" list. I hadn't intended to comment, as I said to Mattisse on my talk page, but I feel I have to respond to Tznkai's indef block. I've had my fair share of problems with Mattisse, and perhaps a topic ban might now be appropriate, but I'm deeply unhappy about her block. Her recent behaviour has been no different to her long-term behaviour so far as I can see, and needs to be dealt with differently. Primarily by her recognising that fault doesn't always lie with others, and putting old grudges behind her. I'm hoping this final step in the process can be a wake-up call for Mattisse, but I don't see blocking her now as either a necessary or constructive step. --Malleus Fatuorum

Statement by SilkTork

It has frequently been assumed that I mentored Mattisse, though that was never the case. I did consider it, as Mattisse did name me as a possible mentor, but the conditions in which I felt mentoring would be successful were not available, so I declined that offer. However, I did offer Mattisse friendship and support. Not the guidance or advise of someone more experienced, but simply the sympathetic ear of a fellow editor. At a time of considerable stress for Mattisse - when she would normally lash out at others - having a friend she could talk with enabled her to put matters into perspective and not feel alienated, misunderstood and rejected. As a result she calmed down and was able to put her considerable efforts (which are acknowledged and appreciated) to good effect without distressing others. Unfortunately our discussions came to an end mainly through my own poor comments rather than Mattisse's doing, and it appears she has drifted back into a position of isolation and vulnerability.

To give a fuller background to the situation. I was an advocate for Mattisse back in the days of the AMA, when she was part of an earlier ArbCom. At that time I became swamped and exhausted by Mattisse's behaviour and resigned as her advocate. Her later criticism of my actions I found grossly unjust and hurtful, and I became very angry - much in the way that people speaking out here in this case have become hurt and angry by her behaviour. I spoke out in the recent RFC in response to Ottava Rima's subtle question about the ability of people to be impartial in relation to Mattisse because she has a way of making people respond emotionally rather than rationally. In reading through that RFC back in January, I began to notice that there was a lot of fluff and outcry for very little substance. I looked into the article at the heart of the RFC, the Major depressive disorder article, and found that Mattisse had made considerable contributions to that article. Her passion, commitment and attention to detail was quite extraordinary. So much so that it appears to have worn down other people involved. And the other people involved then reacted very badly toward Mattisse. As I read through the history of that article, I began to see Mattisse's world. And Ottava Rima's comments began to make more sense. Editing Wikipedia can be emotional and stressful - there is a warning when we click on the Edit button "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it." Yet people react badly toward a well intentioned editor who wants to see improvements. And their reaction winds up the well intentioned editor so that matters start to disintegrate. We now have a call for an ArbCom on the basis of this?. Hardly a disruptive statement. Hardly merciless. Hardly vandalistic.

I had been hurt by Mattisse and had lashed out at her in the past. But when I started to look into her world, I realised the worth that was there for this project, and that with just a little bit of warmth, support and encouragement she could continue to be an asset and could grow. If there is to be an ArbCom here I hope that the solution to be found will be a warm and supportive one that the community can be proud of. A punitive solution in revenge for emotional hurt will not do any of us any good. SilkTork *YES! 22:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moni3

I made this post at ANI today, which sums up my perceptions of what is going on. I don't know what else to say about it other than it's very sad that this has become necessary. Mattisse's posting across other users' talk pages begging them to join in the ArbCom against her [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] is a perfect example of the foot-shooting behavior that makes her claims often seem like malingering. There is no in-between or constructive criticism with Mattisse it seems. There is only with her or hate her—in her own mind; that she cannot see the efforts her fellow editors have gone to praise her contributions while gently encouraging her to drop her interpersonal conflicts is just as sad. I genuinely wish her peace because I do not think she gets it here at Wikipedia. I wouldn't wish this case on ArbCom members either. No good will come of it, but revisiting this every 3 months is just as futile. --Moni3 (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mike Christie

I've had no direct involvement with Mattisse that I can recall, though we have both commented at the current debate at Talk:The Age of Reason. Her behaviour there seems unacceptable to me; and among the comments of hers I've seen elsewhere (I think almost all at FAC) there are more examples that have led me to hope she never comments on one of my FACs. I've hoped to avoid ever having to interact with her. She may be an asset to the encyclopedia in other ways but I would like to see a definite end to this behaviour, via blocking or banning. Based on her past behaviour I see little hope that a topic ban or good behaviour probation would be worthwhile. I am glad to see that the case looks like it will be accepted. Mike Christie (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ling.Nut

I am afraid that I don't have high hopes that this will go very well, if that's an acceptable thing to say. My reason is this: the whole focus of an Arb case is on the individuals involved... heck, Mattisse's name's atop the page! and here I am, talking about Mattisse!.. And the format seems as if the people are squared off against each other, toe-to-toe. For that reason, I must humbly predict that this Arb case, if accepted, is quite likely to devolve into a big mess. Mattise does very commendably well when he/she does not perceive him/herself to be in conflict with others. Unfortunately, the whole format of an Arb case (as I said) simply looks and smells adversarial. And Mattisse emphatically does not do well when he/she perceives him/herself to be in conflict with someone. What should Arbs do if they accept the case? Neither carrots nor sticks directed at Mattisse are likely to provide a basis for long-term, positive change – since both can be perceived as messages "about Mattisse", rather than as feedback on the dynamics of interactions. Ditto for a mentor; after a while, it will all seem as though the mentor is taking sides or evaluating Mattisse personally rather than providing unbiased feedback on behavior. That's not likely to help Mattisse in any meaningful way. Probably the only hope is a strong request for Mattisse to voluntarily disengage immediately and for a long time whenever anything seems to be becoming a conflict. This may involve dropping articles near and dear to his/her heart. If he/she is unwilling to drop articles that he/she feels passionate about, then... I don't see how he/she can avoid believing that every disagreement is an intensely personal conflict. Again in my humble opinion, speaking merely as a well-wishing colleague, Mattisse does not need to focus upon him/herself, nor upon any other individuals named here or elsewhere. In fact, as I said here, Mattisse emphatically needs to stop focusing on other people... Instead of seeing every disagreement as a personal attack, he/she needs to evaluate his/her words and actions, analyzing how that behavior is most likely to be interpreted by an average individual. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 10:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/3/1)

WP:NOT#PLOT

Initiated by Shoemaker's Holiday 15:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

WP:NOT#PLOT has shown very little stability over its time in policy, and was added after a mere three people voted for its inclusion, while 3 other people opposed it. It has been consistently controversial, and the language has proven completely unstable, wavering greatly.

I opened an RfC on it, and, in a straw poll, 55 people said that, in principle, WP:NOT should not cover plot summaries, to 54 who said it should. This does not even cover the wording, which, as I said, has never been stable.

Policies, at the top of their page, say that they have "widespread agreement". It's clear that WP:NOT#PLOT cannot get agreement in any form. However, the people who want it in have turned the page into a circus, insisting that, despite the poll showing it has no consensus, it should remain in anyway.

If the most broad-based question possible, simply asking if it should discuss plot summaries at all, cannot show consensus, then clearly no actual wording is going to get any sort of consensus.

This makes a nonsense of policy. I have tried to participate in discussions in order to settle this without coming here, but the people who are in favour have personally attacked me, engaged in hysterics, repeatedly claimed I didn't hear that, and generally the process has been turned into a circus sideshow by people trying desperately to keep it in, lack of consensus for it be damned.

Since a few people who insist it MUST be in WP:NOT are not going to stop editwarring, misrepresenting the reasons people say it should be removed no matter how many times we explain what our motivations really are, throwing up constant attacks and screeds, and so on, it's clear that anything short of Arbcom is not going to settle this stupid mess, and let us move on to useful actions, like trying to find out what should actually be said about plot summaries in policies or guidelines, if the current version has no consensus.


Examples:


Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

I strongly urge that unless ArbCom wants to turn this into Episodes and Characters 4, to not take this case for several reasons.

First, we're still looking at the results of the straw poll initiated by SH, and technically the RFC is still inside of 30 days. (It opened on the 14th) so we're still gathering opinions.

Second, the RFC only determined if PLOT should be in NOT. Even SH's original post suggested then that discussion should be opened to figure where to place it if there wasn't consensus to keep it. I agree that there may be strong enough consensus to move PLOT out of NOT, but we haven't figured out where that end point is, as that is still being discussed (eg is it still policy, or is it only a guideline, and should it apply to both fiction and non-fiction, meaning that WAF is not the right place for it). Thus, there is still ongoing discussion with plenty of reconcilable differences and thus no need for ArbCom intervention yet. It may be we cannot resolve it in the future, but we're not at that point yet.

Finally, no other DR steps have been taken primarily because of the above. Ok, NOT has been fully protected at times (And currently is now) because editors are trying to bold and removing it and others put it back (I'm guilty of the latter myself), but that's not a normal DR route.

The only question that may be on the table is the fact that we have a policy statement that, in principle has support to be at least a guideline, is marked as under discussion (via an inline tag), and may be moved elsewhere - is it appropriate to remove that until a new home is found or better to keep it and marked disputed until that home is determined? Based on the way the Date Linking case is going, patience is a virtue and waiting for the resolve of the discussion is the better course of action. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Carcharoth

In response to the "status" of fiction notability, the last version of FICT (aka the Phil Sandifer version) failed to gain consensus due primarily to devil-in-the-details. However, that hasn't resulted in failure to continue working on something that is less detailed as to specifics and emphasizes more a case-by-case evaluation, possibly leaving it as an essay that suggests that its impossible to quantify how fiction articles are kept. Part of why this has not heated up is that TTN has not be active since the start of the year and no one has pushed for any major fiction merges/etc. The most recent incident of such was an attempted merge at List of South Park episodes, which was resolved due to efforts of several to show that that a few random episodes were notable, with the good faith assumption further work would be done to establish the rest, which continues to be done (the SP project is doing an GA/FA drive to help this).

So it is not that there is an issue of irreconcilable differences, but instead just continued work. There are a few editors in the debate that continue to hold extreme positions and make it difficult to determine the intermediate consensus point but has not significantly entered into behavioral problems - or at least ones that can be enforced at this time given the wording of the second aspect of the Ep&Char 2 remedy about urging editors to work together. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to add that this is the type of behavioral issues that are threatening to destabilize work towards consensus. --MASEM (t) 02:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DreamGuy

The person asking for ArbCom to step in claims: "Since a few people who insist it MUST be in WP:NOT are not going to stop editwarring, misrepresenting the reasons people say it should be removed no matter how many times we explain what our motivations really are, throwing up constant attacks and screeds, and so on"; This is certainly quite rich considering that it's the people who want to remove the plot section from WP:NOT who aren't willing to accept that they do not have consensus to do so and that they need consensus before getting to do what they want. Policy doesn't change without consensus, period. This filing is yet another example of an attempt by someone to wikilawyer to get what they want instead of following the normal process. At this point, the process is that they have to work to get a consensus to make a change. That's it. There's nothing here that requires ArbCom to step in unless the members want to send notice to the project that they're willing to get dragged into every content dispute out there as long as some party really wants to get their way but can't be bothered to work towards getting a broad base of support for it. DreamGuy (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if I can bring up a related point that has always bugged me: Why are policy pages even editable? Guidelines too for that matter. Once they are fully formed, a consensus should be needed to make any change, and that should be forged and fully demonstrated and endorsed on the talk page before any edits are made. The problem we have now is that it's relatively easy for a group of editors who have been told that something they've done is against policy to just go and change the policy page, either on their own stealthily and hope nobody catches it or through tag teaming with similar other upset editors. Sometimes they make sub pages that people aren't watching and edit them and then try to edit the main policy to reflect the subpage. Even polls and votes shouldn't change policies unless there is demonstrated site-wide support to do so, and even there I'm sure lots of things in NOT could be voted out by a mass of newbies and others wanting their Simpsons trivia to stay in articles, and heaven forbid if a collection of spammers ever get together to take the teeth out of WP:EL (we already had people take out the restrictions against YouTube and encourage copyvios as supposed "fair use"). These pages need to be held to a much higher standard than mere article pages. DreamGuy (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Locke9k

I strongly recommend that the ArbComm committee reject this arbitration request and instead return debate to a freshly created RFC, better organized and conducted to result in consensus rather than polarized voting.

When Shoemaker's holiday created the RFC in question, he included a straw poll from the very beginning of the RFC, placed before the discussion section. The strawpoll allowed for two extreme and polarized positions; either to outright support or outright oppose any statement on plot in WP:NOT. This 'poisoned the well' and turned the RFC into a voting contest between two largely fixed sides (led vocally and often conetentiously by Shoemaker's holiday on that 'against' side and Gavin Collins and other on the 'for' side. The combined effect of the straw poll and the perhaps excessive dominance of the debate by a few parties has diverted any real collaborative search for a moderate consensus position. Many of the editors who voted either for or against might very well be amenable to a more centrist consensus position were a more thorough and collegial discussion conducted. For example, one of the oppose "votes" also stated: "that the total coverage of fictional topics here must not be limited to plot"; this editor clearly has been 'shoehorned' into an oppose vote by the polarized design of the straw poll, despite the fact that he does not actually oppose any mention of plot in this policy. The truth is that both in the way he set up the RFC and in his description of the outcome, Shoemaker's Holiday has unintentionally exaggerated and polarized the uniformity and extremity or the positions on this issue; furthermore, polarized debate has impeded productive discussion.

I thus suggest that this ArbComm request be denied, that the old RFC be closed and archived to avoid confusion, and that a new RFC be created, without a straw poll, to serve as a more honest community discussion in search of a consensus solution: either a more moderate wording acceptable to more people or a consensus as to which other policy/guideline is a more appropriate location. I would further suggest that highly partisan proponents on either side (in particular those mentioned above) restrain themselves from excessive participation in a new RFC. It is enough to clearly state their position once and offer slight clarifications later if necessary. Repeated harping on the same points or consistent argumentative responses to anyone with a diverging viewpoint have been common in the current RFC and stymie the search for a broad consensus. Locke9k (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sceptre

Regardless of whether the case is accepted or not, ArbCom need to ensure that the current endemic problem of people closing discussions in which they have participated in is stopped. It's seriously becoming a major process problem. Sceptre (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Protonk

For those not following along at home, this dispute is effectively an extension of E&C2/3, without the AfD bit. I don't think there is a meaningful role for the committee here. Protonk (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Hobit

The serious, and wider, issue here is what happens to policy when it no longer has consensus? Do we need a super-majority to remove policy or is it enough to show that it lacks consensus? This issue won't be resolved until we have an answer to that question. So address it now, or address it later, I don't see the parties involved resolving the problem until that issue is addressed. Hobit (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, the notion that the RfC "Poisoned the Well" is fairly unreasonable. The basic question is, and should be, if PLOT belongs in NOT. The question didn't address the form it belongs in, it simply asked if it does belong. The majority (by a very small margin as of a few hours ago) said no. I'd assume the "centrist" view, as Locke9k would have it, would support it in NOT, but in a different form. I think the question asked in the RfC was exactly the right one to ask. Hobit (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me for muscling in, but I think Hobit's "what happens to policy when it no longer has consensus?" hits the nail on the head. This is a consitutional issue, concerning the rules that govern the rules. --Philcha (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Randomran

  • Shoemakers Holiday has requested ArbCom make what's essentially a policy decision. If this is the new role of ArbCom, I have a bunch of policy questions waiting in the wings.
  • Discussion had finally progressed away from the old polemics of "keep NOT#PLOT exactly the same" versus "delete NOT#PLOT entirely", and trying to find a compromise wording or placement. But Shoemakers Holiday was unhappy with how that discussion was going and WP:BOLDly tried to achieve a result with no effort to build consensus.
  • Shoemakers Holiday used the WP:3RR as an entitlement to try and remove his undesirable policy 3 times in just 40 minutes. [16] [17] [18]
  • Shoemakers Holiday has centered out the bad conduct of Gavin Collins, who was recently the subject of an RFC that included incivility. The conduct of one user is should not be used as a sword for Shoemakers Holiday to achieve his desired policy goals, or to silence all people who disagree with him in good faith.
  • Shoemakers Holiday has tried to turn his non-consensus changes around on the people he disagrees with by relying upon a straw poll. But this fails to acknowledge WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY:
... determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.
  • Reliance on a polarized straw poll between two extreme options is also a failure to understand WP:CONSENSUS:
Consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons. When a discussion breaks down to a mere polarized shouting match, there is no possibility of consensus,

So basically, there is no case here for ArbCom, because there is no user conduct issue. To the extent that there is a user conduct issue, it's that Shoemakers Holiday ignored good faith efforts to build consensus and proceeded with WP:BOLD changes followed by borderline WP:EDITWARring. However, I believe that Shoemakers Holiday is acting in good faith because he selectively forgot a few common sense policies, such as WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY in their entirety. At worst, ArbCom should issue a firm reminder advising all of us to have a discussion about how to rephrase or move NOT#PLOT in a way that will achieve consensus, and remind us to be civil WP:CONSENSUS-builders rather than aggresive WP:BOLD editors on such a contentious issue. Randomran (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pre-emptive WP:BATTLEGROUND comment: I fully expect people to pour into this thread, asking ArbCom to pick between two policy extremes (keep NOT#PLOT exactly the same versus remove it entirely). I just hope that ArbCom doesn't take the WP:BAIT. I also hope that most people aren't so fundamentally stuck in a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that they even try to fuel that fire. I'm just an average editor, but I'll be watching and judging the people who do. Randomran (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Carcharoth

There has been progress on fiction to the degree that people are recognizing what they can't accomplish. Nobody can really enforce WP:N or WP:NOT#PLOT with an iron fist, just as nobody can really save the majority of articles about fictional topics. Moreover, nobody can remove WP:N or WP:NOT#PLOT as good general practices on Wikipedia, just as nobody can enforce them strictly. It's helpful to rule the extremes out, and I've seen a lot of people soften their position in hopes of building a consensus. We're not there yet, though.

Since ArbCom can't make policy, the most helpful thing that ArbCom can do is help us from retreading the same ground. This might be as affirmative as showing us the next step -- for example, who would be party to a mediation that involves literally one hundred (probably more) editors who have differing views on a key guideline? But short of this, it could be as minimal as pointing out that retreading the same old policy proposals is a user conduct issue. It's a refusal to get the point, which is a form of disruptive editing. If ArbCom said, straight up, that we're not allowed to fall back into the old "remove WP:PLOT" versus "keep it exactly the same" proposals, the discussion would move forward very quickly with some kind of middle ground. Randomran (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steve Crossin

While i personally find WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT a thorn in my proverbial side, the fact of the matter is, there are no specific user conduct issues to arbitrate. Maybe a note about standard editing decorum, but nothing more. And Carcharoth, you suggest mediation. Well, speaking as a mediator, I wouldn't mediate this. It's unworkable. Too many parties, many who have the "it's my way or no way" mentality, meaning compromise, which is a key component of mediation, would be hard to achieve, making mediation futile. But i'm preaching to the righteous here. You know this, and i trust you know what to do. Reject the case, let the community deal with it. Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 23:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

There's no user conduct issue here apart from that displayed by Shoemaker's Holiday. WP:POLICY says "The process for changing the status of a guideline or policy should normally be similar to the process for promoting a page: Start a discussion on the talk page outlining the reasons for the proposed change in status ... and solicit community input. After allowing a reasonable amount of time for comments, an independent editor should close the discussion and evaluate the consensus." The onus is clearly on those wishing to change a policy wording to gain consensus, and despite not having such a consensus, Shoemaker's Holiday - who was clearly not an independent editor - implemented the change anyway, and then edit-warred over it.

Also, Shoemaker's Holiday clearly misreperesents the issue in his statement - the vast majority of the disruptiveness on WP:NOT in recent times has been from those wishing to remove PLOT, and at least one editor has been blocked for it. I doubt if this RfAR will be accepted, but an RFC/U for Shoemaker's Holiday to inspect his clearly disruptive editing may be in order. Black Kite 19:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Pixelface

It should not be this difficult to change a policy page. And this is about user conduct. Multiple involved parties of E&C1 and E&C2 (and editors of those case pages) simply refuse to let anyone remove WP:NOT#PLOT from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, even though that section of policy does not have consensus to be policy. You can see who's been re-adding it here.[19] On May 5, 2009, the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not was protected for 3 days[20] for edit-warring over the inclusion of WP:NOT#PLOT in that policy, with Shoemaker's Holiday doing the removing (since an RFC has shown that that section does not have consensus to be policy[21]), and with Kww (who Arbcom has previously considered a topic ban of) and Black Kite (an involved party of E&C2) doing the re-adding. Here is the range of edits. Here Black Kite admits that the current RFC on whether WP:NOT should include a section on plot summaries is "NOT a consensus" and yet he's re-adding WP:NOT#PLOT to that policy. It makes no sense. The policy WP:NOT has been protected multiple times in the past due to WP:NOT#PLOT — on April 24 for 3 days[22] (later changed to 1 week[23]), April 6 for 3 days[24], February 6 for 1 week[25], December 30 for 1 month [26], and also May 13, 2008 (by Black Kite).[27]

Regarding the events of December 30, I removed WP:NOT#PLOT and Jack Merridew, who I told Arbcom should not be unbanned, who had been unbanned a few weeks earlier, and who had agreed to avoid "all disruptive editing" as a condition of being unbanned, repeatedly reverted me and accused me of "vandalism" (edit range), something Sceptre (an involved party of E&C1 and E&C2) has also done in the past, in April 2008[28]. (Jack Merridew and Sceptre were both indefinitely blocked in 2008, but later unblocked.) Jack Merridew was warned by his mentor and current arbitrator Casliber about those edits. Jack Merridew started an ANI thread, and Masem (who has re-added WP:NOT#PLOT to WP:NOT more than anyone on Wikipedia[29] and who had previously opened 2 ANI threads[30] [31] over my removals of WP:NOT#PLOT, which resulted in no action) created a user RFC on me, which never contained any diffs of the certifiers trying and failing to resolve a dispute with me, and none of them even saying which dispute they tried to resolve. The policy was unprotected 3 days later[32] after my request for unprotection[33] and my pledge to avoid that policy in January, which Kww said was a "weak pledge."[34] At the user RFC I pledged to not edit WP:NOT in January, February, and March 2009[35] and I kept that pledge. I have not edited WP:NOT since December 30.[36] Yet the dispute over WP:NOT#PLOT continues. I suppose I'm an expert on this topic, since I've made over 330 edits to WT:NOT [37], more than anyone on Wikipedia, and most of them related to WP:NOT#PLOT. I've written User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT to explain why WP:NOT#PLOT cannot be policy. I've created User:Pixelface/NOTPLOT threads to show just how long and how much that section of policy has been disputed and discussed (long before my RFC in January 2008). And I've created User:Pixelface/NOTPLOT edits to show each and every edit to WP:NOT#PLOT. To say that it's unstable is an understatement.

Certain editors insist that there must be a consensus to remove WP:NOT#PLOT before it can be removed, and I, along with several other editors claim that in order to be policy, it must have consensus to be policy. I anticipated the current problem regarding the current RFC on WP:NOT#PLOT on January 2[38], after Protonk floated the idea of another RFC[39]. Policies describe standards that have wide acceptance in the community. Policy must reflect consensus. If there had to be consensus to remove something from policy before it could be removed, every new addition would have to be debated for days, and the addition (which may not reflect consensus) would remain on the page during that time. An editor could simply make any edit to any policy page and then stonewall for years with a group of like-minded editors to keep it there. Certain editors insist that there must be consensus to remove WP:NOT#PLOT, but there was never consensus to add it in the first place[40].

An article about an TV episode and an article about a fictional character requires a plot summary. After E&C1 closed, I started an RFC on WP:NOT#PLOT in January 2008 since there were several threads on WT:NOT about removing WP:NOT#PLOT even then[41][42]. That RFC was inconclusive, but I think the current RFC is definitive. There is no consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT to be in WP:NOT. Personally, I first removed WP:NOT#PLOT from WP:NOT on March 10, 2008, like I explained at my user RFC. That was earlier in the day before E&C2 closed. In October 2007, Sgeureka said that TTN "enforces" PLOT, and TTN's actions were so controversial among the community that Arbcom placed him under a six-month editing restriction (which he violated at least twice and was blocked for). I could tell then that WP:NOT#PLOT did not have consensus to be policy. At the time there was also no consensus to delete several plot-only articles at AFD, such as this AFD. This is how that article looked when it was snow kept. The dispute over WP:NOT#PLOT has been seriously going on for over a year (and much longer if you look at User:Pixelface/NOTPLOT threads). In April 2008, I explained my removal of WP:NOT#PLOT on April 16, 2008 (which AGK blocked me for "vandalism" for). AGK "retired"[43][44] in December.

I've removed WP:NOT#PLOT from WP:NOT more than anyone, and I think my multiple removals of WP:NOT#PLOT from WP:NOT are borne out by the current RFC[45], which shows there is no consensus for WP:NOT to have a section on plot summaries. Since the RFC will "officially" close soon, Arbcom may not have to get involved, but it may benefit everyone here if they talk about consensus/no consensus to add something to policy, consensus/no consensus to be policy, and consensus/no consensus to remove something from policy. The dispute will not stop if certain editors keep on insisting on "consensus to remove" (even though there was never consensus to add in the first place, and even though at various times there have been a majority of people who say WP:NOT should not have a section on plot summaries). The situation is disgusting. Shoemaker Holiday's removals may have been premature, but the RFC has been pretty much split down the middle since it started, which no indication of drastically changing. --Pixelface (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DGG

There is no consensus on what the policy should be, and bringing it to arb com will not help us get to one. It is reasonable that there be a higher level of consensus for policy and guidelines than that required at afd, because an afd affects only one article. PAs I see it, the reason why all proposals have bogged down at the stage of details, is because some people on each side would rather have no policy than have a policy they don't 100% agree with. and are therefore conducting what amounts to a filibuster.It will continue until the general body of interested Wikipedians get tired of them, which I hope will come soon. I do wish we could find a new way to structure these discussions, because I've participated in numerous attempts to find some clever wording, and I am very reluctant to waste time in continuing in the present environment. If any member of arb com has some brilliant ideas on how to do this, I wish they'd suggest them privately as individual editors. We could use some new ideas, either on procedure or--even better--on the underlying issues. DGG (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lankiveil

I strongly urge ArbCom to reject this case. About the only thing I agree with in Shoemaker's Holiday's introductory statement is that WP:NOT#PLOT has been controversial. Without getting into the specifics of the case, we have reached a state where there is no clear consensus on a way forward; while the poll has been characterised as giving a narrow victory to the "remove" camp, a careful reading of the results will in fact reveal a wide range of viewpoints and opinions far more complicated than a simple binary "keep/remove" situation. Further dialogue is needed to resolve this impasse, and I don't that there's anything that the ArbCom can do with its powers that will hasten this process.

Full disclosure, I did also venture an opinion in that poll. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/8/3/0)

Baronets naming dispute

Initiated by Tznkai (talk) at 00:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Previous arbitration
  • lengthy ANI thread
  • This situation is quickly devolving into a dramafest with ancillary distracting issues including an argument between Giano and Gallglass, an argument about Bishonen and Sandsteins' block and unblocks, and overall involves allegations of conflicts of interest. We are beyond the point where a friendly Request for Comment will help, there is too much baggage.

Statement by Tznkai

My involvement in this situation is purely administrative, being neither Irish nor British in ethnicity, citizenship, or persuasion, and it is my opinion as an administrator that this will end poorly without some sort of Arbitration.

The dispute I believe, goes roughly as follows. Vintagekits moved a series of Baronet articles, removing their title (Nth so and so and such and such), enforcing what he believed was a proper style. Kittybrewster objected by requesting BrownHairedGirl to revert and to reinstate the topic ban which had just expired. (For the record, I was the enacting administrator on that topic ban). BrownHairedGirl and Vintagekits carried on a lengthy and unpleasant discussion on their talk page while engaging in an edit war over multiple page moves, which eventually ended with Vintagekits reverting once again, and BrownHairedGirl blocking Vintagekits and reporting the block for discussion on ANI. In the meantime, both Vintagekits and Kittybrewster opened up ANI threads against each other. Throughout the course of the dispute, Vintagekits unblocked and blocked several times, and was topic banned by Sandstein Close to the same time, I started a thread proposing a three way topic ban on Vintagekits, BrownHairedGirl, and Kittybrewster, under the theory that all three were too emotionally involved to make useful edits to the area. The threads make the following issues apparent:

  • Vintagekits maintained throughout that he was editing within policy, specifically the Manual of Style on naming conventions, but was willing to edit war to maintain it.
  • Vintagekits used an accusatory and counter-productive tone throughout, which escalated with blocks and sanctions.
  • BrownHairedGirl Edit warred with Vintagekits before blocking Vintagekits over the same issue an example
  • BrownHairedGirl's comments in the thread were (in my opinion) emotional, lengthy, nasty, and counter-productive
  • Kittybrewster has a conflict of interest.
  • There is an overall feeling that this dispute was about politics and personal enmity between these three, instead of garden variety edit warring.

The community consensus that emerged was to topic ban for six months both Vintagekits and Kittybrewster, and for BrownHairedGirl to make no administrative actions in the area. I believe however, that this is a temporary measure at best as none of the issues were actually resolved.

I would like the Committee to examine several issues in particular:

  1. Investigate allegations of conflict of interest.
  2. Examine the behavior of the named parties, and to determine a solution or containment to their disagreements, especially in relations to the edit warring.
  3. Discard, modify, or endorse the extant topic ban.
  4. Of course, to examine my involvement in the matter as a named party.

I further request that the committee ignore the ancillary Giano/Bishonen/Sandstein/et al issues.

--Tznkai (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Reply to John Vandenberg

I think Fozzie's motions are worth considering as a starting point, but may not fully deal with the (perception personal animosity) and conflict of interest, but disposing by motion may be in order. As far as the rest, I appreciate the desire to keep editors productive in places they wish to help out, any solution that requires more admin hours I believe is doomed to failure. The Troubles/Baronets/Irish-British topic area has a very high burnout rate (Alison and Fozzie are two major examples) and the remaining admins are somewhat marginalized (sometimes through no fault of their own) by mistrust. You will quite frankly, need to assemble a task force a few admins wide, and many, many admins deep.--Tznkai (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie

I'm probably going to burn bridges here, but, here's my thoughts.

A) Vintagekits is well known to the Arbitration Committee as an instutituion (if not to the individual members of the Arbitration Committee). He has a long and storied history of.. being problematic in certain areas. Please note, I'm not saying he's not useful to the project in other areas, (he's one of the few users I can think of that have a FA to their credit after a community ban that was later modified).However, British Baronetcies is an area where I think VK cannot help but be disruptive. Some would say his "Two weeks till I bring the pain" type comments is evidence of WP:POINT-y behavior. I'm thinking that at least a limited PERMANENT topic ban, specifically in the area of British nobility is probably a good thing.

B) Kittybrewster is another user who has.... a history in this area. A lot of it mirrors that of Vintagekits, I cannot imagine two more people diametrically opposed in worldview. I do not know if he has a COI regarding baronetcies, considering the rank he holds. He does have a strong POV in these areas (not saying he's wrong or he's right, just that he has one). Combined with the voluminous past history (of which the Troubles ArbCom is not a full record), perhaps a topic ban from the area as well is for the best, encyclopedia wise

C) BrownHairedGirl... I can only think of two editors who have been knee deep in this whole thing as long as she has that are still administrators (Those are John and Rockpocket, for future reference). Even the two of them would tell you that they would really rather not deal with these areas any further then absolutely necessary. I think that it's time for me to echo some advice that was given to me, BHG, you've fought the good fight for so long, perhaps it would be best to let someone try to keep these areas above water. It's time to rest your arms, and focus on other areas of the encyclopedia that are not so maddening.

If I was to write a dispensatory motion in this case, it would be as follows:

A) The topic bans with regards to British baronetcies and British nobility in general on User:Vintagekits and User:Kittybrewster are confirmed. They are to last a mininum of six months, and the editors in question can submit a private request to the Arbitration Committee to have these sanctions lifted then. Vintagekits and Kittybrewster are advised that the Arbitration committee will review these topic bans no more then once every three months.

B) Due to past history of the use of alternate accounts amongst both Vintagekits and Kittybrewster, both are to disclose to the Arbitration Committee any and all accounts they have or will edit with in the future, and this topic ban applies to all accounts (or, just a straight limiter to one account.)

C) User:BrownHairedGirl is thanked for the amount of effort they have put into one of the most contentious areas in Wikipedia. However, it is the recommendation of the Arbitration Committee that BrownHairedGirl not use their administrative tools in this area any further, and let new blood try to keep the peace.

Just my two cents in the situation. SirFozzie (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BrownHairedGirl

I do not think that it is helpful at this point for arbcom to accept this case, because a mechanism is already being used resolve the substantive issues, and community-imposed topic ban on Vintagekits has removed the immediate conflict. An arbitration at this stage will divert energies from resolving the substantive dispute.

The mechanism is a list of contentious articles, which has helpfully been created by Vintagekits. Choess (talk · contribs), who is not a party to the dispute, has agreed to review the list to assess which articles can be moved and which cannot, and I have agreed to assist in that process. (We also need a systematic review of the page moves already done).

This dispute started solely because within hours of the expiry of Vintagekits's one-year topic ban from Baronets (imposed as a condition of the lifting of a community ban on him), he began a series of rapid-fire page moves of baronet articles, many of which have been subsequently demonstrated to be flawed (by creating disambiguation problems), exactly as happened on his previous such move-fest in August 2007. Vintagekits advertised this escapade with a countdown on his talk page accompanied by a series of threatening edit summaries: "dont be scared - be VERY scared!!!!!!!!", "Two weeks and counting - whup-ass!!!", "unlucky for some!". If Arbcom takes this case, it is important that this planned drama of probation-immediately-followed by rampage be examined closely, because everything else has flowed from the efforts of other editors to limit the damage caused by this deliberate repeat of a previous, similarly disruptive campaign by Vintagekits.

The existing guidance at WP:NCNT has stable for some years, and provides for use of the article titles only where disambiguation is needed. Multiple reuse of first names within these powerful families means that much disambiguation is needed, because it was common for many members of these extended families to have identical first and second names and to hold similar positions. While many articles on baronets many be unnecessarily disambiguated by title, careful checking is needed to identify in which articles this is the case, and which share names with other notables who are currently redlinked (this is a work-in-progress, so many dab pages which should exist have not yet been created). Unnecessary disambiguation causes much less damage than careless removal of disambiguators, not least because bots bypass any double redirects created by a page move. I have accepted throughout that there is some over-disambiguation of baronets, but stressed that much care is needed in identifying which articles do need to be disambiguated, and which do not.

When I started editing on saturday, I first loaded my watchlist, where I saw a mass of page moves (some of which I looked problematic), and a note on my talk page. I replied, noting that it looked like a matter for ANI, set about checking more articles, and rapidly got my a msg from Vintagekits, which accused me of creating a disambiguation page to "to distrupte and cause trouble". That hostility and aggression escalated in his further replies to me, a pattern which I have found repeatedly in the long history of abuse and threats I have received from Vintagekits.

Tznkai's depiction of my responses as "emotional, lengthy, nasty, and counterproductive" is deeply unfair: I have, for the umpteenth time, been on the receiving end of a torrent of abuse and threats from one of wikipedia's most serially-disruptive editors (Vintagkits), and I deplore the blame-the-victim logic of that accusation. I have indeed been emotional: I am scared to find that an editor who routinely hurls abuse is coming to blindly disrupt an area where I and others have put in a lot of work, with a stated unwillingness to help in the cleanup, and a prior warning to "be scared". Yes, my replies have been long, because while it's easy to concisely repeat "I was enforcing policy", it takes many more words to explain why the reality is more complicated. (WP:NCNT is a guideline not a policy, it does have an important exception to its general principle, and wikipedia works by consensus not by one editor deciding to "enforce" policy, even if they are right).

At this point it would much better to get on with fixing the substantive issue than to spend the next few months raking over the coals. However, if Arbcom take this case, I ask that Giano be joined as a party, because of his sustained role in stoking conflicts involving Vintagekits. Similarly, Bishonen's wheel-warring exacerbated this dispute and was not resolved at ANI: she should also be a party.

As to Vk, I want no involvement with him: the aggression and rudeness which he repeatedly displays is something I try hard to avoid, and there are several places in my talk archive where I have received abuse from for declining' to take an admin role in one of his fights. With Vintagekits, it's a case of damned-if-you-do, damned if you don't. On saturday, no action was taken at ANI about his aggression on my talk page, and well-meaning requests to engage in one-to-one discussion with him felt like being asked to sit down alone with a large and shouting thug. WP:CIVIL is a fundamental to collaboration, and "civil" does not mean "dont be scared - be VERY scared!!!!!!!!", "Two weeks and counting - whup-ass!!!", "unlucky for some!" and a so-called "request for dialogue" which opens with "That is possibly the most moronic logic I have ever had laid before me" and "Less of the bullshit, arm waving and drama". If anyone wants to know why women are grossly under-represented in any survey of wikipedia editors, the lack of enforcement action against this sort of male aggression may be one area to explore. (I know that some editors will object to me "playing the woman card" as it may described, but the excessive tolerance of this behaviour is a gender issue, and having been a victim of hate crime it pushes all my buttons). My responses were inevitably less than perfect.

Finally, I am concerned about the basis of the topic ban which has been imposed on Kittybewster. He did indeed do a mass of COI editing some years ago (which became so contentious that I blocked him twice), and that led to a big clearout of articles on non-notable members of his family. However, the only evidence I have seen since of any remotely COI editing by him is the creation of one article on a lake of dubious notability, with a thoroughly unacceptable link to his own website. Is the topic ban being imposed for that one article? Or for the pattern of misbehaviour which I thought had stopped two years ago, when he was thoroughly rebuked? So far I have seen no other evidence of anything more recent, though Will Beback did point to the need for a further cleanup of links to www.kittybrewster.com. If those links postdate the cleanup, we have a problem, but has anyone checked when they were added? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS In response to John Vandenberg's question below, surely the simple solution is a ban on page moves of articles on baronets other than through WP:RM. The content of the articles has not been in dispute here, merely the page names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PPS John asks "are you recommending that we restrict only these users from moving articles on baronets, or a more broad restriction to also include newcomers?"
Either would help. Restricting only the nominated users would have the advantage of not constraining editors whose page moves have not been disputed, but runs the risks of creating an uneven playing field in which some editors could perform rapid moves which others could revert only with a complex process. I think that a generalised requirement (at least for a limited time) to use WP:RM would be more balanced, and would also have the advantage of requiring repeated consensus building, which would lead to a clarification of how the guidelines work in practice (the principles seem well-agreed, but the application is contentious; discussion of individual cases would expose any need for clarification, because guidelines are intended to reflect consensus rather than prescribe it). The long list of articles which Vk has created would be a good starting point, but other articles will appear along the way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Giano, the issue is not some sort of "challenge to my authority", much as Giano wants to try casting things that way. The problem here is simply one editor who has a passionate dislike of baronets (a group which intersects with my main area of work) and who has repeatedly indulged in mass-moving rampages without proper checking, causing disambiguation problems identified by many editors at ANI.
My concern is about Vintagekits repeated disruption in this area and his history of aggression towards those who edit in this area, a problem which is repeatedly exacerbated by Giano's interventions to muddy the waters by attacking those who complain about attacks or disruption by Vintagekits. Giano's repetition of fabrications such as that I try to stop others editing in this area impedes resolution of the problems, and runs completely counter to the quote at the top of his own talk page about editors who know something abut a subject being disrupted by a know-nothing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Giano

I full endorse the statement by Tzankai, and request the Arbcom accept this case. I have been following this matter for years, which has brought about the inevitable cries of bias from one side or the other. At the moment, it is not a resurrection of The Troubles, and I am keen that it stays that way. That is mainly because the group of "socking baronets" have now been banned and only pop up occasionally (or so we hope) as IPS [46]. One of them (I think it was this one, but the page is blanked so I cant be sure, User:Counter-revolutionary) used to claim to be a real life friend of Kittybrewster, and indeed Kittybrewster followed me straight to that page [47], this is part of the problem, while much better than it was, there is some kind of bush telegraph that forbids other editors trying to edit those pages, remove over deferential and sycophantic terms, POV or even try to impose the MOS concerning the minor British aristocracy, and, not surprisingly, it brings out the worst in all concerned. I was amongst the first to spot the source of the problems there and have always kept members of the Arbcom fully informed, and I mean fully. My solution is to give me Admin powers for the sole purpose (I don't want them anywhere else) of policing the aristocracy and the now dwindling Irish problems - you might be surprised at what happens ;-). Giano (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do appolagise Kittybrewster, it was not Counter-Revolutionary who claimed to be KB's old friend, but another one of the "gang" User:Major Bonkers who oddly enough seems not to have edited since the others were banned. Giano (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replying to Kittybrewster's "Response to Giano: Your point being what? " My point can be interpretated by the Arbcom, in any way that they see fit. Giano (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to BHG's points that Bishonen and I be added as involved parties. I'm afraid BHG would like to dilute this case as much as possible to detract attention from her own behaviour. Bishonen does not edit in that field and my edits can probably be counted on the fingers of both hands. Her statement is further proof of her beleif that anyone who challenges her authority is in need of sanction. A belief that has lead he to this sorry point in her Wiki-carreer. Her "playing the woman card" smacks of desperation, she has quite fealessly blocked 100s of men (presumably) twice her size - I'm afraid that does not wash at this belated stage. Giano (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kittybrewster

I 100% endorse the statement by BHG. Vk has no positive constructive interest in Baronets; he was just seeking a fight as isa shown by the threatening statements in his "countdown". I am not interested in getting sucked into stress and argument by a shouting threatening thug who must always have the last word.

My actions. I saw Vk’s aggressive threatening countdown and realised Vk was donning his angry mastodon clothes again. I saw a number of pages were wrongly moved to his POV, and decided not to get involved with him. I posted a report on AN/I and with BHG and went on holiday; Since then I have logged in ooccasionally and noted more aggression and finger pointing by Vk. BHG has been terrific. I understand Vk thinks I have a COI with regard to Baronetcies; I agree I have a POV but I edit within policy. Tzankai and Vk are wrong in saying I have a COI. Perhaps I should not have thrown a biscuit to the chiwahwah when I reverted the renaming of Arbuthnot Lake which Vk wrongly and provocatively changed to Arbuthnet Lake.

The topic ban is a good idea for Vk but profoundly wrong for BHG and me. It worked well when Vk was topic banned for a year and discouraged from interacting with me. I believe his editing of boxing articles is fine.

Conte Giacomo has an agenda of his own and stirs everywhere he can. His comments around sockpuppets are non-specific, filled with innue4ndo anbd irrelevant. He however is socking with his Ka of Catherine de Burgh account. That should be stopped.

I am convinced that CounterRevolutionary was wrongly indef blocked for a crime he never committed. He abhors swearing and vulgarity. That unjust block should be lifted now.

I am unhappy with the way the community has addressed this because (1) Vk, BHG and I are intermuddled as if we have done the same unstated wrong at the same time; that is a breach of natural justice. (2) I have done nothing wrong. (3) BHG has done nothing wrong (4) the "temporary period" of topic ban is unspecified. (5) Tzankai should not have determined the issue, not being independant, (6) I have no COI on baronets.

Finally I would like to be told what I should have done differently. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to SirFozzie. That would please Vk but would leave BHG and me resentful and hobbled. It is unjust and unnecessary. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Giano: Your point being what?


Statement by Vintagekits

I'll try and be as honest as I can so lets get down to facts (as I see it).

  • 1. I have an issue with Baronets (multiple issues) - I dont think that its a notable title, I seriously question how their articles are created, I think the sources used in there articles are little more than self-published sources and I disagree with the way their articles are titled.
  • 2. There has been widespread abuse in naming of Baronets - wherever and whenever possibly Baronets were named with the title - e.g. Sir Questionable Notability, 3rd Baronet of AFD as opposed to simply Questionable Notability.
  • 3. I decided to "right the wrong" and move them in accordance with Point 4 of the Naming conventions and the Peerage Project.
  • 4. Kitty messeged BHG's talk page and ANI stating "I request that all today’s edits be reverted and that the articles ban / injunction be extended." - this is their true motive operandi - no mention of how to sort it out - just get him article banned. No one would touch articles they own!.
  • 5. Kitty then fled and left the work to BHG as she is a admin and acts with impunity in this field. Without any attempt at discussion BHG went about a programme of mass reverts of my moves - against MOS.
  • 6. I opened a number of discussions to sort the issue out such as here. BHG focused on past grievances, replying "you are back again making as much mischief as you can with baronets, moving articles without any consideration for the needs of disambiguation" - I attempted to avoid going down that road and focus on the issue but BHG continued to make it a personal battle. And then BHG went back remaning like this, this, this and this with edit summaries such as "revert aggressive and abusive move campaign".
  • 7. After being asked by Spartaz I then opened a second discussion - seen here. She ignored this for over half an hour an continued her campaign of renaming such as this, this, this, this. Her reply to my discussion was that she wasnt interested in engaging with me. Clearly shown in this edit here and her edit summary - "Sorry, Jack, I appreciate your attempt to find a middle way, but it doesn't work when dealing with Vintagekits".
  • 8. So I open a third discussion here in an attempt to sort it, BHG refuses to engage and now states At this point, I feel threatened and intimidated by you, yet again. Please stay off my talk page. Talk about holding the upper hand - so if I move pages I am being disruptive, if I try to discuss it I am initimidating her and if I dont like it she can block me!
  • 9. At this point I felt like taking the bait but instead I waited a few hours and tried discussing it again - she deleted my comment without replying to it. So I left it there for the day and took on board what everyone had said - I thought the mass renaming was justified but maybe not the best way to go about it - the vast majority of the moves were correct but there are sure to be some mistakes in there as well. So I came back the next day and said to myself that I should be very selective in the articles that I move so that if there was any issues then it would be easier to discuss them. So I moved 3 articles - this, this, and this. Again without any discussion or engagement BHG agressively renamed them here - sighting per WP:NCNT.
  • 10. So I opened a fourth discussion here - note at this point neither BHG or KB have opened a discussion with me or tried to engage in a meaningful discussion with regards this issue. With this move BHG was pulling two tricks a. moving without discussion and b. purposefully dropping his middle name which was commonly used throughout his life so that at disambiguation using the title "Sir" would have to be used. Looking at the article history and the discussion you can se exactly what happened and then I was blocked my BHG and she moved the article title back and "wins" the arguement - if only we all had these facist powers to ensure we were always right.
  • 11. I actually agree with a lot of what Tznkai has said - maybe I cant edit in this area, possibly I am blinded with rage with the way those "on the other side" edit this which keeps me from editing this topic properly.
  • 12. What would I have done different? I would have made a similar list to that that is on my talk page now and gone through them that way - but to be honest I didnt think there would have been this uproar.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a lot made of my countdown to the end of my topic ban as if it was a "threat" of some kind. It was nothing of the sort it was merely a bit of fun. Prior to my topic ban ending my block ended and I did the same last time and it was taken in the spirit that it was mean - and that was a fun! Thats what it was meant last time and that it was it was meant this time - as if it has any baring on this dispute anyway!--Vintagekits (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BHG refers to my "mass moving rampages with no checks" and "repeated disruption in this area" - more over emotional nonsense without concrete evidence. Facts not ficton please!
To that I say that all the pages I moved either had the correct and shorter form of the name as a redirect or a red link. The completely scuppers the disruption agruement. And further I was if it was mass renaming without checks how many pages did I move and how many of them does she have an issue with? Lets have some actual analysis from you instead of drama and hyperbole. --Vintagekits (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/1/3/4)

  • Recuse. Risker (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, from the looks of it this definitely needs addressing. Wizardman 03:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept as framed by Tznkai, to examine the behavior of the four listed parties only. The other individuals involved in the later discussion are indeed ancillary to the core dispute, and nothing productive will come of expanding the scope to include them. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the proposal by SirFozzie looks like a simple way for everyone to have more fun, warm dinners and sleep.
    Can the affected parties please indicate how they would feel about this resolution? As a possible alternative, due to the valued contributions that might otherwise be lost, is it feasible to permit these two editors a little room to move in this topical area? e.g. creating stubs, working on articles in their userspace without interruption by each other, and/or being allowed to work in mainspace on a few articles in this topical area subject to approval by one or two admins familiar with the likely problems. i.e. can they write articles and then disengage as the community takes over, or will they be unable to restrain themselves ? John Vandenberg (chat) 06:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • BrownHairedGirl, are you recommending that we restrict only these users from moving articles on baronets, or a more broad restriction to also include newcomers? John Vandenberg (chat) 08:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kittybrewster, how do you feel about the suggestion that the people involved in this be restricted from moving page? A comment on the general idea will suffice, but if you think it would work some specifics would be useful. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept circumscription per Kirill - Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. We should not step in where the community is already handling the situation. I see no compelling reason to interfere with the commununity's chosen method of minimizing the disruption and drama. I fail to see what necessary purpose would be served by opening a case at this juncture. Any remaining "open" points are still well within reach of the community to resolve and I see no reason to presume that the community cannot resolve them. I would support, at most, affirming and complimenting the community resolution by way of motion per SirFozzie's suggestion. --Vassyana (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll be willing to accept this case and lean toward SirFozzie's suggestion if the community fails to arrive to a resolution. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm wondering if putting the case on hold while the Community discusses further might be useful. A binding Community decision that the Committee then votes to approve may be the fastest and best way to get resolution to the situation. I can see the usefulness of a motion voted on by the Committee as some insurance that the remedy is enforceable by uninvolved admins. Most of the work has been done, but I think more comment and tweaking of the wording might help make this stick. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse due to prior involvement in this area. I encourage acceptance of the case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept per the other accepts. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. Would like to note in passing that this is the fourth naming dispute to be before ArbCom in recent months ("Ireland article names", "West Bank - Judea and Samaria", and "Macedonia 2" are the other three). Unlike the other cases, this is over names of articles about people, not places, and it also doesn't involve a real-world dispute. So I find myself asking what is the underlying cause of this dispute? A real-world naming dispute, or Wikipedia editors unable to work together to agree on something to end a dispute over interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines, enabling them to move on? I suspect the latter, so would urge acceptance of the case and a swift resolution. Some general thoughts: in my reading of Wikipedia articles on scientists, I often encounter articles named either way (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), and while I might question this in some cases, move-warring is never the answer. Moving a page only changes its title - most readers are more interested in the actual content of the article, not what title it is at. Move-warring is like dancing on the head of a pin. Would also urge that the following pages be looked at closely with regards to this request: 1, 2, 3. Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold for another couple of days per FloNight. During this time, commenters are asked to update their statements (if they have not already done so) regarding whether community discussion is adequately addressing the issues. If community measures do not quickly resolve the dispute, I will vote to accept (in which case all evidence should be presented within one week, the case should be decided promptly thereafter). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept with Kirill's limitations and per Flo's proposal.  Roger Davies talk 02:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland Motion (orig. case) 21 June 2024
Clarification request: Noleander none (orig. case) 3 July 2024
Amendment request: Durova Motion (orig. case) 4 July 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.


Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate

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

Notifications:

Statement by SilkTork

I have userfied an article, Blood of Angels deleted in an AfD for User:Ebonyskye. I have since discovered this archive: User talk:Ebonyskye/Archive1 in which the user has been notified by User:Thatcher that a checkuser found a relationship between the Ebonyskye account and that of User:GuardianZ who was banned from editing the Midnight Syndicate article. Thatcher also informed Ebonyskye that the ban extended to related articles including Nox Arcana articles. The article I userfied is a Nox Arcana article. My query relates to the wording of the ArbCom case. "GuardianZ (talk · contribs), and Skinny McGee (talk · contribs) are banned indefinitely from Midnight Syndicate." is clear enough. However, "No present or past employee or associate of Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, or Monolith Graphics, under any username or anonymous IP, may edit Midnight Syndicate or associated articles. " is less clear. Under the ruling is GuardianZ/Ebonyskye free to edit Nox Arcana articles? SilkTork *YES! 16:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fred Bauder has been notified: User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Clarification_request_on_wording_of_Midnight_Syndicate_ArbCom_decision. SilkTork *YES! 18:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fred Bauder

The issue is whether the petty edit warring continues or starts up again. Fred Talk 21:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thatcher

Relevant Arbitration enforcement archives: [48], [49]

Although this checkuser request was formally declined, another checkuser answered privately that Ebonyskye was related to GuardianZ (search link for arbs). It's possible that this was an error, of course, but I believe Ebonyskye is a "present or past employee or associate of Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, or Monolith Graphics, under any username or anonymous IP" and so falls under the topic ban passed as remedy 2. I notified her of the topic ban here, logged here.

It is apparent from Ebonyskye's contributions that she has been evading her topic for a long time. Interestingly, I find a complaint by Ebonyskye that Skinny McGee (talk · contribs) was evading the same topic ban, which resulted in Skinny McGee receiving a stern reminder. Why Ebonyskye was not similarly reminded and sanctioned, I have no idea.

Most of Ebonyskye's edits relate to the band Nox Arcana (including a considerable amount of self-promotion, which is not really an Arbcom matter) and she has largely (but not entirely) avoided direct edits to Midnight Syndicate where the dispute arose. (Skinny McGee seems to be a current member of the band while Ebonyskye is, or is associated with, a former member, now a member of Nox Arcana.)

One possible response would be to narrow the topic ban to encompass Midnight Syndicate only, to allow Ebonyskye to edit Nox Arcana-related articles, although this seems somewhat inequitable to Skinny McGee and essentially rewards Ebonyskye for being able to escape sanction for repeated violations of the ban over the last 18 months. Another possibility would be to lift the topic bans entirely on a trial basis, contingent on continued good behavior by all parties. I am somewhat concerned about this approach, having just discovered the diff of Ebonyskye reporting Skinny McGee's violation while knee-deep in her own repeated violations, and I would be interested to hear Ebonyskye's views on why she thought it was appropriate to report the violation in August 2008 while she was at that same time engaged in editing multiple articles that fell under her topic ban. (I expect she will say that she never was GuardianZ; I point to the checkuser log I noted above, and also to her contribs, if she is not GuardianZ she is still clearly a related editor. There are ways to correct a mistaken topic ban, pretending it does not exist is not one of them. She needs to come up with a better answer than that.) Thatcher 17:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Enonyskye

Thatcher, I still state I am not and have never been any other editor, not GaurdianZ, not Skinny McGee, no one.. I believe I sent you an email two years past with my home address, after which I immediately began to get spammed. (Not blaming you, just maybe opened up my email to this inadvertently). So I removed my email from Wikipedia and even got a new email. Anyway, the reason I reported on Skinny McGee was because I could. He falsely accused me of making edits I did not make then falsely accused me of being another editor. I simply returned the favor, except that he was proven to have had 4 other accounts, whereas I did not. And Thatcher, you yourself said that your discision is based on editing I had done.I did not start having a problem with McGee until he started with me. Per the suggestions of other editors (who also turned out to be sockpuppets - MarckChase, and unsigned others) I began looking for reliable sources to back up some of the statements on the Nox Arcana pages. I added what I thought was appropriate, describing the music, the instrumentation, and was slammed for it. So I looked for more sources. Then I got slammed for having too many links. More seasoned editors and admins love to slam on newer editors to "be bold" and "cite" etc, and when we DO, then we get crap for citing too much and for being too bold. This is just stupid that now there's actually a "committee" to decide if anyone properly looked into something I complained of 2 years ago. You didn't care then, so why now? And I can't even recall all the edits I may have made 2 years back and really don't want to waste time looking through history and trying to recall what I was even thinking then. How about this solution. Delete all of it, every scrap for BOTH bands. Who cares, right? Ebonyskye (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I admit, it IS frustrating to be falsely accused. So, how do I go about proving who I am, or in this case, who I am not? It's like deja vu, I know I asked this of Thatcher and we (or some admin and I) traded emails, but that seemed to go nowhere. Also, I would like to suggest some AFDs. Where might I go to do this? I read the procedure, but since I am banned from editing certain articles, I cannot follow said procedure. There are plenty of articles needing RS or that are far less notable than any I have edited. Since I am discouraged to create, perhaps I can help clean up. Ebonyskye (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Awaiting statements. Please bear in mind that this case was decided more than two years ago and that none of the arbitrators who participated are still serving on the committee, so give us a little time here. Please give notice of this request to Fred Bauder, who wrote the decision, as he may have a view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

Statement by DrKiernan

The process to develop a procedure for deciding Ireland article names has stalled. All three moderators have resigned. However, options for the next phase of the process have been suggested.

I would summarise the comments of those editors participating in the current discussion of the options on the wikiproject talk page as:

Approve option 1 (or a version of it):

  1. BrownHairedGirl 02:35, 8 April 2009
  2. Fmph 06:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  3. DrKiernan 07:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  4. Kittybrewster 07:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  5. BritishWatcher 10:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  6. Rockpocket 17:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  7. Bastun 11:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  8. Evertype 17:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  9. ras52 11:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

OK with option 1:

  1. Jack forbes 10:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose option 1:

  1. Redking7 20:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  2. MusicInTheHouse 11:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerned with option 1:

  1. Mooretwin 10:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC) (because it tackles each problem in turn to try working towards a global solution rather than tackling everything at once)
  2. RashersTierney 21:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC) (because it might lead to option 4)

That's at least a two-thirds majority in favour of trying option 1.

I ask:

  1. that ArbCom amend remedy 2 with the addition of: If the panel should fail to develop a procedure, then ArbCom will impose one.; and
  2. that ArbCom impose option 1 of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#Options for next phase as phase 2 of a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles, without prejudice to further phases of the mechanism or procedure that may arise in the future in the course of discussion. DrKiernan (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I'm sorry that the Committee's outline of how a solution to this dispute should be reached, without dictating a result, has apparently not succeeded or led the parties to an agreed resolution. Awaiting further statements before opining on how to proceed from here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are currently working to select new moderators for the project. Credit goes to FayssalF for ensuring that this was being addressed. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Sebastian, PhilKnight, and Edokter for volunteering for the difficult task and wish them well. Please bear with us for a few days while we sort things out. (This does not preclude evidence that another approach may be needed or suggestions for an alternate method of handling the situation.) --Vassyana (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Vassyana. I am concerned, however, that the number of participants in the process and the discussions seems to be declining and is less than in previous iterations that tried to find a resolution to this issue. Any solution to this will not work if there is insufficient participation in both the process and any final naming discussion or vote or other process. Hopefully establishing a new set of moderators will help. Carcharoth (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman

Request by Shoemaker's Holiday

I have just discovered that some site called Wikisynergy has, despite the previous withdrawal of the case, been using it to create an attack page on me. [50]

I think it's time we end this farce: The Arbcom has already agreed that all negative findings against me are withdrawn. I hereby ask the arbcom to declare the case completely invalid, and to comment on the unfairness of the way the case was undertaken such as letting a sitting member of Arbcom constantly attack and belittle me and other editors, unsamctioned.

I hate to bring this up again, but as you can see by the link, it has become necessary. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


To MBisanz:

I think that we need to remove both. I do not really feel like being an admin again, but I think that we should clarify the text, state tht the Arbcom case should not have been accepted in the first place, that it is completely withdrawn due to the major procedural errors, and so on.

The arbcom have accepted that the case was problematic. While the former Arbcom's actions were not being used to harass me, that was enough. However, it has now become an issue, and I must ask that the Arbcom make it clear: The procedural anomolies and the personal attacks by a sittingg member of arbcom throughout the case page meant that it was impossible for the case to have been fair, one user should not have been singled out for a test case over a single action, due to seeking discussion about it instead of immediately capitulating to a member of Arbcom; and the complete scan of every admin action that he had ever done, in order to find some evidence to use against him was a grand fishing expedition that would have found some evidence about any admin, but it was treated as if it were a random sampling for which more could have been provided, not a complete list.

Furthermore, the RfC was strongly against the removal of adminship, but after calling for the RfC, it was ignored. I believe that I'll just quote from User_talk:UninvitedCompany/archive22#Matthew_Hoffman_case. It's in response to UninvitedCompany's claim about the RfC "My sense was that it wasn't broad based and didn't include substantive participation from people outside the group of SPOV proponents who take a hard line on topics such as Homeopathy. We received some private comments from users who supported some sort of sanctions regarding Vanished user but did not wish to so state publicly."


I still consider the entire case nothing more than official harassment (If nothing else, the committee allowed a sitting member of Arbcom to attack and belittle multiple editors, and when this was complained about, as seen above, they defended his right to do so.) I was willing to agree to a face-saving compromise before, but now that it's being used to attack me, I feel that I must ask you to revisit, and make a stronger statement.

I don't want to say too much about the case: it would simply serve to drag the Arbcom's dirty laundry further into the public eye. I hope that what I've said is sufficient for the Arbcom to investigate this themselves. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Kirril: I'm worried that having it as an Arbcom requirement will open me to more problems of this sort. I'm happy to make a personal agreement, however, or something like that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


To Newyorkbrad: I fee l the Arbcom can so soemthing: They can declare that the case should never have been accepted, and that it is completely withdrawn. Matthew Hoffman had already been unblocked - by me - before the case was opened. It's not as if the committee withdrew any restriction from him - that had already been done - it just served to harass the acting admin who had somewhat misread a situation.
Matthew Hoffman is a red herring, this case was about Charles Matthews not getting his way immediately, being upset that I sought opinions other than his because I didn't have time to review the case.
He says as much:
If the situation was so unimportant that had I given into him immediately and secretly, instead of seeking more input, there would have been no case, but because I did seek more input, there was one, then it's clear the case was only launched because Charles didn't get exactly what he wanted out of an admin he wanted to lord over immediately. Every attack and statement of Charles is all about his bruised ego lashing out, and the Arbcom of the time thought this was A-OK. He's apologised for this, and I don't think we need to look further into his actions, unless there's evidence that similar behaviour is continuing. However, I'm sure you must admit the case was highly irregular and discreditable. The Arbcom should admit this, and withdraw it fully, replacing it with a statement fully pointing out the problems. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


--Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Newyorkbrad: The arbcom has it fully and completely in their power to say the case was entirely invalid, and should not have been accepted, and that the handling of it made it impossible for any justice to have occurred. That is what I ask you to do. You can do something: That. Please do. The Arbcom put a weapon in the hands of my enemies with their horrendously unethical actions in that case. I want the Arbcom to make a complete, and unambiguous statement declaring that they do not uphold anything about that case at all, and will take this to the community if the Arbcom continues to attempt to defend the indefensible. [User:Shoemaker's Holiday|Shoemaker's Holiday]] (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdChem

The Matthew Hoffman case needlessly destroyed the reputation of an imperfect but dedicated and able administrator. It also did significant damage to the reputation of the Arbitration Committee, a situation that became worse over the course of 2008. The withdrawal of adverse findings against Shoemaker's Holiday was a necessary and welcome step forward by the Committee in righting previous wrongs. I strongly urge the Committee members to take the next step and formally recognise the mistakes that were made. This could both address the damage done to Shoemaker's Holiday's reputation and signal unambiguously the Committee's intention to ensure similar mistakes do not happen in the future.

Some of the issues which I believe should be recognised and addressed:

  • Allowing a member of the Committee to essentially slander the subject of a case is bad enough, but when other members refuse to even consider the appropriateness of the behaviour sends an appalling signal.
  • If a member of the Committee is recused s/he should not be participating in any way off-wiki... in this case, the recused member not only remained on the ArbCom email list but was also reading the evidence. Only the Committee members at the time know what else he may have said behind the scenes, but even if it was nothing the mere fact of his reading confidential case materials when he was a party to the case is bad enough.
  • The complete disregard of the RfC - it really looked like disdain for the views of the community.
  • The proposal of sanctions by a Committee member before almost any evidence was posted - and the same members disinclination towards accountability, in that he was unwilling to answer questions about his actions or the case.

I believe that the Committee would be wise to vote some principles / findings to be recorded on the case page. Some that might be considered:

  • If a member of the Committee is a party to a case (whether as initiator or not), s/he will recuse from decision making and participate solely through channels available to all other parties. The case clerk and the ArbCom list moderators will ensure that case-related materials are only distributed to the non-recused members of the Committee. Recused members are expected to comport themselves with the same decorum expected of other experienced Wikipedians.
  • Wikipedia has dispute resolution processes for good reasons, and cases where many or most of them have been bypassed will usually be declined as premature - as the Matthew Hoffman case should have been. If the Committee calls for community input (by way of RfC, for instance), the community views will generally carry substantial weight.
  • Committee members who are unable to act with impartiality are expected to recuse. Members of the Committee can and should call on another member to recuse if that member displays apparent bias (such as by voting on sanctions before evidence is presented, or declaring that community input that differs from the member's views should be ignored).
  • The Matthew Hoffman case should probably not have been accepted in the first place. The behaviour and actions of the recused arbitrator who brought the case reflected poorly on himself and the Committee. Coupled with other irregularities in the case, there can be no confidence in the reasonableness or accuracy of any findings. The Committee affirms that all findings in relation to Shoemaker's Holiday have been rescinded and he remains a Wikipedian in good standing.

I realise that these are strong statements. I came to be aware of this case fairly early in my time at Wikipedia. As a scientist, I feel I have a lot of knowledge that I can contribute, and yet the difficulties in getting sensible changes made are daunting. The findings of the Matthew Hoffman case were one of the reasons that I ultimately gave up on participating. I've only recently come back and am looking around to see whether the situation has changed. Please show me that the Committee can recognise the mistakes of the past and act to correct them. EdChem (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

I was a party to this case. Let's not dig up this horse corpse to start beating it again. Jehochman Talk 13:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question by MZMcBride

It's my understanding that most of the people who have examined this case agree that it was incredibly poorly handled. Has the Committee ever considered a motion or finding to that effect? That is, something that says that the case was mishandled or that certain Arbitrators acted inappropriately.

I realize that the Committee vacated part of the decision and I realize that digging up a seemingly buried horse is not always the best thing to do, however being explicit here that mistakes have been made and perhaps even apologizing for them publicly might do a world of good. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chaser

Why doesn't the Committee just swallow its collective pride and offer an institutional apology for helping Charles Matthews fuck over Shoemaker's Holiday? This was an embarrassment to everyone involved, the Committee most of all. Hiding behind procedure and insisting the only thing you can do is cut away more from the original case is crap. Time to own up to it and issue a clear statement: "ArbCom fucked up and we're sincerely sorry for it."--chaser - t 06:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Sticky Parkin

To SH- the more you go on about this the more you are giving ammunition to hate sites, which thrive on people seeming upset, prolonging a "drama," or feeling they've been treated unfairly. Just admit to yourself that you made some mistakes, even if you consider them small, some parts of your behaviour detailed in the case were accurate, and even if you think the decision/case was disproportionate, just get on with your life. Swallow it, however bitter it is. If you can't, get outside assistance. I know you feel this caused you problems in your real life, but if this is the worst thing that happens to you in your life, you will have led a charmed life. You're just making yourself seem bad by continually bringing this up, in my humble opinion, and just creating further stuff people on hate sites can use against you. The best thing you can do is let it die, to avoid perpetuating the hate sites etc and to preserve your own reputation. Arbcom have already been good about blanking the case, they didn't have to as some details of it were accurate. Everyone who has been involved in an arbcom feels hard done by. Join the club :):) and just seek to avoid such things in future, for your own peace of mind. Trying to avoid such things, within reason of course, is a lesson you can learn from it and might help you get on with things. There are more important things in this world, go out and grasp it before you are old.:) Best wishes. Sticky Parkin 22:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

  • Note to Clerk: Since they've been mentioned or referred to, a Clerk probably needs to notify the editor who filed the Matthew Hoffman case as well as the former arbitrator who drafted the initial decision of this thread. I do not know that they will actually want to comment, but due notice applies to everyone. (I am considering other points raised.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Arbitrators

  • A few points:
  1. We have no control over external sites.
  2. The Committee has already allowed you to edit under a fresh account, and withdrawn the findings insofar as they reflect adversely on you. What else is it that you want?
  3. I for one will not support "declar[ing] the case completely invalid". There are other findings and remedies in the case that are still in effect, and for which there is no cause to withdraw, namely the findings that there is no evidence MatthewHoffman is a sockpuppet, and that the accusations that he engaged in harassment, POV pushing, extreme rudeness, and vandalism are not borne out by the evidence, and the remedy that his block log be amended to indicate that the blocks were not justified.
--bainer (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The other findings aren't relevant in any practical sense, I think, since Hoffman never returned from his block. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recused. --Vassyana (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Stephen Bain's points, and I would particularly emphasize point #1. Risker (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A question for Shoemaker's Holiday, since I don't quite understand the intent behind "remove both": are you repudiating our earlier agreement? Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • EdChem, there are Committee policy reforms happening over at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Draft policy (and the talk page). John Vandenberg (chat) 14:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reviewed the external page to which Shoemaker's Holiday links. Although Risker is of course correct that we have no control over what use is made of our decisions on external sites (compare the last principle in Mantanmoreland), I feel justified in commenting here on the page in question under these circumstances. I do not understand what specific purpose the page is intended to serve, and I would urge the people responsible for the external site in question to, at a minimum, substantially redact it. If the page is intended as criticism of a particular former Wikipedia administrator, I submit that it is needless, both because the individual in question is no longer an administrator and will not imminently be one, and because as noted above the arbitration findings reflecting upon him, which were determined to have resulted from a flawed process, have been withdrawn. Even were that not the case, the references there to this individual's real-world name (which he has not used on Wikipedia for more than a year) and some of his personal identifying details are completely gratuitous and in some respects appear to be almost intentionally hurtful. Under the circumstances, were I behind the external site in question, I would find maintaining this page in its current form to be a more negative reflection upon that site than upon Wikipedia or one of its contributors. All that being said, however, I cannot imagine that any action by this Committee to vacate or expunge the remaining findings in this 16-month-old case would materially affect either perceptions of the case or the actions of the external site in question. For these reasons and those mentioned by some of my colleagues, with regret, I do not think there is anything more we can do to ameliorate this situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think NYB pretty much hit the nail on the head. There's not really anything more we can do. I don't like what I see on the site, and i'd like to see it redacted, but as stated above, it wouldn't work out. Wizardman 01:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Newyorkbrad. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case September 11 conspiracy theories

Request by Jehochman

The sanctions in this case are being gamed. Editors who are banned start new accounts, which then must receive the mandatory warnings before they can be sanctioned. Please modify the warning requirement so that administrators may place sanctions without warnings on disruptive single purpose accounts that edit within the locus of dispute. For further reading see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bov, particularly the checkuser clerk's note on the latter case. Note that I am involved in editing these articles and have been responsible for filing the above two sockpuppet cases as well as a large number of WP:AE requests that have resulted in topic bans. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 13:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse, t's often unclear who the puppetmaster is; there are so many alternatives. It's also somewhat time consuming and difficult to make a case for meat puppetry. We have to dig around and find some sort of off site solicitation. I expect that after we found the most recent incident of meat puppetry, those who use that strategy will be more careful not to leave tracks. It is much easier to say here is a single purpose account, repeating the same tired arguments, please ban it from these articles. Good faith editors are getting worn down trying to repel these accounts. Jehochman Talk 20:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A. I'm involved so I'm not blocking anybody. I rely on other administrators, many whom have doubts about blocking somebody unless there is an airtight reason. B. WP:SPA is an essay. In the current climate, any block issued on that basis would have people up in arms. See the Abd and JzG case I filed above as an example of what most admins are fearful of. Jehochman Talk 21:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen, has Wikipedia descended so far that Arbitrators feel comfortable making rude (or unprofessional) comments on this page? A checkuser clerk, who seems to be tired of the endless sock cases related to 9/11 asked me to come here for help. So I did. Please address the problem. We have a passel of tendentious sockpuppeteers who can spend 60 seconds to create a new account, while it takes me at least an hour to shut them down via our bureaucratic processes. That's a very unfavorable tradeoff. If you don't like my idea, would you at least investigate what's going on and see if you can propose something helpful or constructive. Blowing me off with a "suck it up" comment is not an option available to you. Jehochman Talk 03:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth, it's not in the cards for me to analyze a week of edits. (The economy is bad; my time for editing is limited.) Perhaps User:MONGO could give some stats. This page, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists/Archive, shows about 7 days worth of disruptive editors. Notice that at least seven or eight accounts got blocked as a result of that report. Thank you for suggesting more editors to help watch the articles. I posted a request for help to WP:AN a week or two ago. It's easy for arbitrators sitting here to say hypothetically what's the right, and quite another to get your hands dirty and see that the reality is not so neat. People are getting really, really frustrated and need more help. Few reasonable editors are willing to tolerate an endless stream of socks and SPAs attempting to add bogus content to WP. Most get burned out and leave, which is exactly what the troublemakers want. Jehochman Talk 05:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jayvdb, a large number of topic bans have been implemented, and even more accounts have been blocked as socks. I've done a considerable portion of the work myself (filing complaints; others process them and yes, logging is not perfect). Warnings definitely do not work. I cannot think of even one example of an editor who was warned and then said, Oh right, I see what I was doing has been wrong, and I'll change my ways. Jehochman Talk 05:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
VirtualSteve, I disagree with picking a friend to do my bidding when I am too involved. Instead, I post to the boards and work with whomever takes up the case. This is less convenient than summoning a minion by Gchat or IRC, but better for Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 12:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
VirtualSteve, I do not beat around the bush. If I want to accuse somebody, I do. I am aware that some administrators do use Gchat or IRC to summon others to do their bidding when they are too involved or have a conflict of interest. I reject that, and am concerned that your suggestion is a step on that slippery slope. When I need administrative help, I've learned that the best course of action is to post publicly and then work with whoever responds. Obviously, if somebody is familiar with a matter from previous administrative intervention, it may make sense to go to them first. Jehochman Talk 15:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight, your suggestion is useful, though I've already posted in a few placed and asked for help. This page is the latest stop on my tour. There aren't many admins who feel comfortable working on sock puppetry cases. We've seen examples in the past where one mistake lead to the admin being run out of town. How about a slight change to the wording of discretionary sanctions: New editors whose editing is indistinguishable from previously sanctioned editors may be subject to the same sanctions without warning. All I'm asking you to do is encapsulate existing policy, WP:TEAMWORK, in the decision. This will provide a little courage for uninvolved admins to do what's necessary. I'd like something I can point to so they won't be fearful of getting sanctioned themselves in case an apparent meat puppet turns out to be a legitimate editor who had the misfortune of repeating the arguments of somebody who was previously topic banned. Jehochman Talk 13:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flo, thank you for requesting additional help. That's what we need. The comments of all arbitrators have been useful. I may point to this thread in the future if any administrators hesitate to block SPA disrupting in this venue. VirtualSteve, if you'd like to help, please watchlist some of these articles. Jehochman Talk 15:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mastcell, User:Raul654 has at times camped on particularly troublesome articles to clear out sock puppets. I'd appreciate that sort of service here. I've asked around but there don't seem to be enough checkusers available to provide expedited service in this high-volume sockpuppetry arena. It seems like all the forms need to filed in triplicate, punched, folded, and stamped before anybody can take action. The slowness of processing checkuser requests causes great pain to those of us who must entertain the sock puppets until they are blocked. Jehochman Talk 19:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony0937 has been here for 18 months and virtually 100% of his editing is related to promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories. Could one of our intrepid arbitrators please look at their contributions and tell us why this account is allowed to continue stoking this dispute? Jehochman Talk 23:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to Cs32en)
That's called removing cruft, per WP:V and WP:NOR. I think it is way, way premature to discuss this at arbitration. Use the article talk page instead. "Rampage"? See also assume good faith. I've written a few good and featured articles. The content I removed would never pass review. Jehochman Talk 18:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(replying to Rlevse 20:55, 22 April) See statements by VirtualSteve and Cs32en. They apparently don't agree that disruptive SPA's can be blocked. Sorry for the threading, but I fear you won't see this otherwise. Jehochman Talk 23:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(replying to Stephen Bain 07:44, 25 April) Suck it up yourself. That's not what I'm advocating. I am requesting help with WP:SPAs, WP:MEATs and WP:SOCKs violating WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NOT. You're playing WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and I'm violating WP:WOTTA. Jehochman Talk 10:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested Motion

Numerous users have been blocked or banned for espousing unverifiable September 11 conspiracy theories. Any new user who appears on Wikipedia suggesting, in earnest, that the World Trade Center was brought down by explosives planted by "conspiracists", may be reasonably viewed as a meat puppet of one of those blocked or banned editors. As such, they may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator.

Wikipedia is not for publishing counter-factual 9/11 conspiracy theories. We really should say enough is enough. I am tired of all the socks and POV pushers, and the enablers who want to hear them out. Therefore, I have proposed the above common sense approach. Please indicate whether you support this or not. Thank you! Jehochman Talk 20:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Status update

The most problematic article has had its semi-protection restored. This seems to have reduced the flow of disruptive WP:SPA single purpose accounts to the point that we can get back to work. Jehochman Talk 12:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke too soon

The accounts have regrouped and are now launching an effort to rename the article to their preferred version. I have commented here that we need administrative help to block disruptive WP:SPA accounts, per the fine advice I have been given below. Could you fine arbitrators please have a look at that discussion and see if you know of any administrators willing to close down the SPA/SOCK party that's going on there? Jehochman Talk 22:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by VirtualSteve

Comment I do not read the comment made by Stephen of "suck it up" (below) as being intentionally or otherwise rude but rather as another way of saying "take it on the chin". As admins we all know that dealing with SPAs and block evaders is part of the joy of the job. Blocking as per the evasion rules remains open to all admins (as detailed by Rlevse and others below), and semi-protection is also a suitable resort at times. Further if an admin is involved to the point s/he can't block, those admins have normally developed trusted behavioural collegial links to other admins whom they can ask to look objectively at a particular situation, and have the appropriate action taken.--VS talk 07:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Jehochman - When posting your responses to my comments Jehochman I expect a little better from you please. I have never used GChat or IRC in my life and I do not summon a minion (indeed I do have the ego to think of any of my fellow admins as my minions) - hence my use of the words look objectively at a particular situation and my clear indication that I am not asking for a favour but rather for someone else with sufficient tools and knowledge to interpret the situation I find myself in. Whilst I appreciate you do not actually accuse me of summonsing minions your linking of the sentences in your response makes it difficult to see that you are assuming good faith at my suggestion.--VS talk 13:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cs32en has encapsulated well the inherent problems with Jehochman's suggested motion. I also believe that accepting that motion would upgrade the rights of administrators beyond an acceptable level and I oppose the motion.--VS talk 22:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So as to provide clarity to Rlevse - Jehochman's comment here and since moved to the appropriate section by Daniel, does not in anyway reflect my thoughts on dealing with SPAs. I do not definitely know the reason behind why he makes this error - but I note again that my words above detail my belief that blocking as per the evasion rules remains open to all admins. That is certainly the approach I have taken and would suggest any admin take in the circumstances described in the request posed by this discussion.--VS talk 11:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tom Harrison

"We have a passel of tendentious sockpuppeteers who can spend 60 seconds to create a new account, while it takes me at least an hour to shut them down via our bureaucratic processes. That's a very unfavorable tradeoff." This is exactly right. Facile suggestions to follow dispute resolution, ask for an ininvolved admin, or get a buddy to do the block for you (seriously?) don't address the problem. That's why this is again before the committee. I invite bainer to model the behavior he prescribes. Tom Harrison Talk 12:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question by MastCell

Would it be possible to identify a "go-to" checkuser who would be willing to look at questions of sockpuppetry on this topic on an expedited basis? This would be someone willing to field relatively informal checkuser requests from admins active on the topic, evaluate their merit, and act on them (if appropriate) rapidly. In the past I've found this approach hugely useful in dealing with high-volume sockpuppetry, and it might help here. MastCell Talk 19:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cs32en

I have edited on various subjects on the German Wikipedia, but my edits on the English Wikipedia are, up to this time, primarily on 9/11-related topics. So I am probably an involved editor here.

In my opinion, we seriously need to consider the possibility that flawed judgment and inconsistent reasoning on the part of some established editors have significantly contributed to the situation that we now face. People will not identify with Wikipedia, and thus will more likely tend to use distractive methods, when confronted with unconvincing arguments, or with a situation in which they perceive that policy is being misconstrued to support reverting their edits or blocking their contributions.

One example has been the recent discussion on the deletion of the word "box-cutters" from the article on the attacks of Sept. 11 [51]. While numerous mainstream media have reported this, is has since become apparent that all these reports are based on a single source (Ted Olson). Evidence such as a trial exhibit mentioned in the discussion now strongly indicates that the information from this source has been incorrect. As being published in a reliable source is an indication that a piece of information is WP:V, but not a sufficient condition in itself, the word "box-cutters" was eventually changed to "weapons" [52], along with some other changes in the text. While this discussion led to a result consistent with Wikipedia policy, there were a number of arguments put forward by established editors that clearly are not supported by policy, such as:

  • "the reports at the time indicated box cutters" (note that the article did not attribute the claim to the source or used language such as "at the time, it was reported that")
  • "Accepting for the sake of argument that it says what you say it does, I don't think we can reasonably use Prosecution Trial Exhibit P200054, a primary source, to over-ride the secondary sources." (i.e. even if we agree that a secondary source - in this case, CNN - is proven wrong, we still need to use it)

Other such arguments, expressed in other circumstances, have been:

  • "We really should avoid foreign sources." (in a case where no useful English source was available)
  • "Pretty speculative research...how surprising...lets see them get it published in a real journal. I got a bridge to sell ya. [...] Jones and co can maybe see if any of these are interested" (It turned out that this list actually includes Bentham Science Publishers, the publisher of the journal that is being discussed.)
  • This was followed by the remark: "rather than arguing with single purpose accounts, why don't you go request some more topic bans over at WP:AE?"
  • "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources." (in relation to a claim that a known and self-identified adherent to a fringe theory has published a paper that supposedly supports this theory -- if anything, notability was the issue here, because nobody doubts that the paper exists, and WP:UNDUE had to be interpreted in the context of the fact that the article's subject, as defined by its title, is the fringe theory itself, not the subject of this theory.
  • This discussion is a typical example of the editing process on these articles.

If these failures in the editorial process of the articles are being corrected, then all editors could be held to a higher standard with regard to their behavior, and genuine vandalism and trolling would be much easier to isolate, whether by community interaction or by appropriate administrative measures. --Cs32en (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the motion proposed by Jehochman

Oppose Jehochman has suggested that the policy with regard to 9/11-related articles should be changed as follows:

  • "Any new user who appears on Wikipedia suggesting, in earnest, that the World Trade Center was brought down by explosives planted by "conspiracists", may be reasonably viewed as a meat puppet of one of those blocked or banned editors." (proposed motion)
  • "New editors whose editing is indistinguishable from previously sanctioned editors may be subject to the same sanctions without warning." (reply to FloNight)

Both proposals imply that administrative actions would no longer be based on the behavior of editors (i.e. whether they engage in constructive discussion, support their suggestions by arguments related to Wikipedia policies, etc.) but on what they think or what they believe in. Calling everybody who shares a certain belief or supports a certain argument a "meat puppet" is not only a misinterpretation of WP:MEAT, but also a thin veil to disguise this approach. --Cs32en (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Jehochman's section "status update"

Jehochman's statement that the semi-protection of the article has significantly reduced editing by non-autoconfirmed users is misleading. There have been two edits by non-autoconfirmed users during the time the article was not semi-protected. During the same period of time, there have been approximately fifty edits by Jehochman and three other editors, with very little explanation or discussion of these changes on the talk page. --Cs32en (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Jehochman's section "I spoke too soon"

One of the editors involved in the discussion has now been blocked for what are, as far as I can see, valid reasons. It would, however, be very helpful to clearly indicate the specific reasons for which a sanction is being requested. Any controversial discussion is even more difficult if people who take part in it are at the same time unsure as to whether any requested sanctions could be applied to them.

My view of the discussion on the renaming of the article is as follows:

  • A recent discussion, resulting in the change of the article's name, lasted for only 24 hours.
  • As the discussion was rather short and possible terminated without actually seeking broad consensus, it is legitimate that editors are continuing to discuss the name of the article. (No edit-warring is happening.)
  • The current discussion is taking place on the WP:NPOV noticeboard. Given that there is not a broad consensus among the involved editors, and that there are concerns about the correct application of established policies and guidelines on the part of some editors, I consider it appropriate took seek the opinions of uninvolved editors on a community noticeboard and to present the arguments there. — Cs32en (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New developments

In less than 40 minutes, Jehochman has deleted 6790 bytes, or more than 12% of the text, from the article World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories (15:31, 15:33, 15:34, 15:36, 15:52, 15:56, 15:58, 15:58, 15:59, 16:01, 16:03, 16:07, 16:08, 16:09). This happened without any attempt to discuss the changes on the talk page, and numerous parts of the article that have been there for weeks, if not months or years, have been deleted. Jehochman has requested a semi-protection of the article at 13:00 today, and has received a reply to his request at 14:35. [53] This may have triggered the ensuing rampage. --Cs32en (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman has filed an A/E request against me on 24 April, at 20:32, and has withdrawn that request on 25 April, at 00:23. I'm collapsing this subsection as it is of less relevance to the present request from Jehochman regarding the prior arbitration case on 9/11-related articles. --Cs32en (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony0937

I think that I am an involved party here and Jehohman's proposal makes me feel very uneasy. He has suggested by that I could be banned for talking about a peer reviewed paper. I suppose I am a SPA and I think that I have heeded the advise posted there. I have read the policy on Verifiability and the Guide Line on Reliable sources and I cannot see the problem. I do not believe I have broken any rules that would constitute a reason for a ban and yet I feel intimidated. Tony0937 (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Protonk

First things first. The requested motion is flawed on face. It doesn't make any sense to treat new editors with a certain POV as meatpuppets of some ur-conspiracist. It is far more likely that there are several sockmasters, dozens of people unrelated to those sockmasters who intend to disrupt wikipedia, and yet more people who geniunely hold these views and don't have a connection to either of the two previous groups. Applying MEAT to all three groups under the assumption that they are all puppets of the first group will generate bad will, unpleasant but valid unblock requests and consternation over admin overreach.

So we should reject Jehochman's motion to ammend (whatever) the case.

Nevertheless, I'm pretty frustrated with the response he is getting from some members of the committee here. The 9/11 conspiracy articles are under an arbcom ruling because they are the locus of dispute between our editors and editors who have disrupted the encyclopedia, wasted time and don't have any real interest in contributing to Wikipedia broadly. It is the poster child for requiring arbcom actions. Because of the nature of the conspiracy and its adherents, online advocacy of conspiracy theories will almost always outstrip reliable sourcing on the theories themselves. the number of editors involved makes it difficult if not impossible to reach a consensus on the talk page which reflects reliable sourcing on the issue and hold-outs (either SPAs or not) make it difficult to commit an edit to those pages which has less than unanimous support. The nature of the theories themselves cause their exponents to disbelieve reliable reporting on the subject and misconstrue or misrepresent sources which may provide limited support for some facet of the conspiracy.

We know all this. What you are hearing now is an editor who claims that these sanctions are insufficient or at least burden responding administrators too much for the effort required to trigger them. Instead of telling him to "suck it up", why don't you draw up an alternative motion which doesn't BITE the newbies as much? Protonk (talk)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

@Jehochman: If you can warn based on SPA criteria, why not block on SPA criteria? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suck it up. If you allege sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, then of course you have to provide evidence to support your assertion. If it can be established that someone is evading a block, a ban, or a sanction by way of puppetry, then they can be dealt with in the normal fashion under the sockpuppetry and blocking policies, there is no need for special remedies. --bainer (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jonathan, if it is unprofessional to defend the fundamental values of the project in response to someone who appears to be genuinely advocating that the criterion for banning should be "that they disagree with my POV", then I welcome the label. --bainer (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Community norms already provide for the blocking of block evading sockpuppets and disruptive single-purpose accounts. The arbitration remedy does not alter those standard practices. Arbitration rememdies must be interpreted within the framework of community norms and with a dose of common sense. All the remedy does is explicitly direct administrators to utilize a full range of sanctions to bring the topic area under control, with basic advice about good admin practices. Generally speaking, giving someone fair warning and some explicit guidance about what to avoid, or how to improve, is hardly controversial as common good pratice before heavy sanctions or blocks. In other words, just follow the usual means of dealing with such potential sockpuppets and SPAs. I have some extended thoughts in a broader context at: User:Vassyana/Splitting Hairs. --Vassyana (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Protonk, with all due respect, you're asking us to do the impossible (unless I am completely misunderstanding you). There is no possible way for us to expand the remdedy while being less BITEy. The remedy already provides completely open-ended authorization to impose sanctions with but a single warning. We could direct administrators to provide new editors with more guidance and more opportunity to prove themselves, but that obviously would increase the burden of enforcing administrators. Alternatively, we could remove the requirement for warnings as suggested by Jehochman, but that obviously would be a good deal more BITEy. However, there is no possible way for us to grant administrators greater leeway to act while simultaneously reducing "bitten" newbies. A significant part of the problem being faced has a great deal more to do with broader community issues than with the arbitration decision. As examples: a) An administrator corps that is not keeping up with the growth of the project. b) A shortage of administrators intervening in difficult areas. c) An increasing tolerance of wikilawyering (and an accompanying slavish dependence on procedure). d) A growing dependence on checkuser in sockpuppet investigations. These are but a few examples of serious issues that have been growing over a long period of time. Unfortunately, there is little to nothing that ArbCom can do about these problems (except perhaps to point them out). For better or worse, solutions to these broader problems will have to come from the community. --Vassyana (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a perennial problem - how to distinguish good-faith SPAs (that need education and pointing to FAQs, and that might become productive editors) from disruptive ones (that need blocking), and how to avoid burnout for those watching an article. The only suggestion I can make is to ask for more assistance in dealing with the topic area, provide the evidence (as bainer says), and to make sure that those appealing blocks are told that this is a contentious area and that they should edit other areas for a set amount of time (probationary topic ban?) before returning to the topic in question (if at all). This might seem like reducing the barrier for new editors to edit, but for contentious topics, this might be needed. Have topic bans restricting editing to the talk page been tried? Carcharoth (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jehochman, could you (or someone else) analyse a week's worth of editing and gets some stats for the scale of the problem? Or failing that, give a rough estimate of numbers of (in your opinion) disruptive accounts? Carcharoth (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, It takes far more than 60 seconds to edit in a way that requires this case to come into play, and the log indicates this decision hasnt been invoked often, which suggests the warnings are doing their job, or people arnt updating the log. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Largely agree with Vassyana. The Committee does not have any additional ways to stop people from using socking or tendentious editing. We are aware that many controversial topics have similar problems. The fresh blood of more uninvolved admins helping in these all these areas is always needed. Placing announcements on AN or AN/I and the wiki-en-l mailing list might help attract some additional assistance. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This doesn't seem to need ArbCom involvement.  Roger Davies talk 14:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per Vassyana, the remedies in the case are additional to those available to administrators generally and do not supersede them. Administrators are empowered to block disruptive single-purpose accounts if they are harming the project. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, agree with Vassyana et al. Wizardman 19:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; I'm not sure I agree with my colleagues here. I wouldn't blink if SPA that jumped immediately in the fray of an active, controversial dispute be blocked liberally with a good explanation provided they are unblocked if they acknowledge the problem area and agree to steer clear of it. Basically, it's a balancing act between newbie love and preventing disruption to the encyclopedia— and some areas (9/11, I-P, and a few others) are so volatile that the putative benefit gained from a new agenda-wielding editor is entirely offset by the added instability.

    That being said, I don't think ArbCom can do much about it directly. — Coren (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recuse. I live and work in New York City about 4 miles from the World Trade Center site. I will adhere to my practice established last year of recusing myself from any disputes arising from the events of September 11, 2001, in part because I was profoundly personally affected by those events and in part because giving any sustained attention to the so-called, but fantastic and worthless, "controlled demolition hypothesis" as a purported explanation for what occurred on that date invariably leaves me enraged. I will remind all concerned that any suggestion that any identified or identifiable individual played any role in a "controlled demolition" of the World Trade Center buildings represents a BLP violation of the gravest nature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case The Troubles

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

Statement by SirFozzie

The Troubles, are not as contentious as they once were, thanks to the tight lid on edit-warring that was created by User:Rlevse here, that subjected the whole subset of articles covered by The Troubles to a 1 RR. This has blunted a lot of the constant edit-warring. However, six months after the fix was applied, someone wants to rip the band-aid off and let the (metaphorical) blood flow anew. User:Sandstein has stated that he will not act on AE requests regarding this remedy, because it is not an ArbCom remedy. We've already seen several folks using IP's to edit war and then when the IP is blocked, use throw-away accounts. The sanctions are needed.. there are 10+ sections in the archives where this is used since December alone.

So, despite my utter distaste of time-wasting bureaucracy such as this, would the ArbCom please vote in the following as a formal ArbCom remedy, as posted by User:Rlevse:

  • All editors on Troubles related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
  • All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.
    • Clear vandalism may be reverted without penalty
  • Blocks may be up to 1 week for first offense, 1 month after the first 1 week block, and then ban options may be considered.
  • As there are hundreds of articles potentially subject to this, I leave it to the community to tag the talk pages of the articles and to decide how to go about that. Code for a template that can be used for that is here: {{Consensus|This article is currently subject to '''[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case]]''', as laid out during a previous [[WP:AE]] case that closed October 05, 2008. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.}}

List of times the Rlevse sanctions has been brought up on AE (there are another 5-10 where it's been mentioned in passing, but these are the ones that refer to the 1RR rule itself.)

[54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], and the two latest ones on AE. If the Committee would look at the history of AE from archive 30 or so on, usually 2 or 3 or 4 sections per archive will have to do with this series of articles,

I don't believe that a new full fledged ArbCom would do anything more then to spend a couple months of time with the same parties arguing in the same way. Instead, what should be done is apply common sense. Use the Rlevse sanctions, and keep the peace in an area where there will be no peace if not applied.

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

If one admin chooses not to act on a particular enforcement request, it doesn't stop another administrator stepping in. Whilst Sandstein might not agree and therefore decide not to take action, if another administrator believes the editor in question has broken the case remedies (In this case it is enforcement of discretionary sanctions) then that is up to them and they may block for that. From what I can see, Sandstein hasn't said he'll overrule other administrators and I suspect he wouldn't even challenge other administrators if they made blocks as part of Rlevse's restriction. It looks like Sandstein merely doesn't agree and doesn't feel comfortable enforcing the decision - that's his prerogative and feel free to simply block if someone goes against the 1RR restriction. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

I'm commenting in my capacity as admin patrolling WP:AE and responding to enforcement requests there. Ryan is right in that I won't (and have no authority to) overrule any admin enforcing the "Troubles" case as he or she sees fit. However, the "Troubles" decision does not, as Ryan seems to believe, provide for discretionary sanctions. Instead, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Probation for disruptive editors, it provides that disruptive editors may be put on Wikipedia:Probation and, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Enforcement, that these editors are then subject to 1RR. That is the arbitral decision that can and should be enforced at WP:AE, including by me.

The section entitled Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case, which purports to put all articles in the area of conflict under 1RR, on the other hand, is not an enforceable arbitral decision, since it was apparently never voted on by the Committee. Its author, Rlevse, has confirmed this at [66]. That is why I will not act on enforcement requests concerning it.

I recommend that the Committee:

Additional comment with respect to bainer below
It's good to know that this is a community sanction, although it would have been helpful if this had been noted somewhere. It is probably not advisable to add a sanction of this type to the "log" section of the arbitration page without any indication of its provenance or authority. Still, since WP:AE is not intended for the enforcement of community sanctions and arbitration pages should probably not contain non-arbitral remedies, I maintain my recommendations above.  Sandstein  08:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

Sandstein has summed up what I was going to say. Perhaps both sanction-schemes would be useful? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, yes, the community sanction was inappropriately written and logged into the ArbCom case instead of the appropriate location. I do wonder whether there would still be a consensus supporting such a measure if the sanction discussion was more appropriately titled; although I was active at the time, and particularly interested in sanction discussions, I know I wasn't aware of it. If the remedy is needed, ArbCom should vote on it and put it into the case - at least that would resolve the matter re: logging.
Unless the remedy is written into the case by ArbCom (in which case AE is more appropriate), ANI is where complaints should go - as with any other requests to enforce community sanctions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tznkai

As the unlucky administrator who started the long chain of events that lead there, I want to add two things. One, discretionary sanctions do exist in that dispute area, they are editor targeted however. Two, the broad 1RR was proposed as an alternative to using probation. It has, I believed, helped significantly in the topic area, and has set an objective standard for that all users can be held up to. I strongly urge the committee to consider endorsing the community remedy.--Tznkai (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Domer48

Having opposed the sanctions, or I should say how they came about I must concede that they have had a positive effect. They have reduced the edit warring and encouraged discussion. POV warriors have been marginalised with disruptive editing being quickly closed down most of the time. Some Admin’s with a particular bias (admin’s can and do have biased opinions) have been reluctant to address the actions of some editors but the 1RR has proved itself despite this. We all know what the sanctions entail, and have clarified through experience what 1RR is and how it operates. For example, a number of reverts without intermediate edits in between is considered to be 1 revert.

So what I’d suggest is that the sanctions be placed on a separate page with the block log transferred to it. It should include:

  • All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.
  • All editors on Troubles related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
  • Clear vandalism may be reverted without penalty
  • Blocks may be up to 1 week for first offense, 1 month after the first 1 week block, and then ban options may be considered.
  • As there are hundreds of articles potentially subject to this, it is up to the community to tag the talk pages of the articles and to decide how to go about that. Code for a template that can be used for that is here: {{Consensus|This article is currently subject to '''[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case]]''', as laid out during a previous [[WP:AE]] case that closed October 05, 2008. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines on this talk page first.}}
  • These final remedies have been linked to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Irish Republicanism and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case.

It should also include what we mean by 1RR, so there is no ambiguity. If it is felt that criteria no.1 is not clear enough expand it. The template be changed to direct editors to the appropriate page, including a link on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case in case any templates are missed during the page change. That’s my 2 cents worth, as to simply remove the sanctions would be counter productive.--Domer48'fenian' 09:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Request Could we have links to the 10? related AE threads since Rlevse augmented the case. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like this community-based remedy is doing the trick. I am happy to leave it as Stephen Bain suggests, or write it into the decision as Sandstein suggests. Could someone please notify the regulars who have been affected by this remedy. e.g. Sarah777, Manticore126, Domer48, BigDunc, and Mooretwin. They may have valuable views to share on how this remedy plays out. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment I'm flattered something I wrote that I thought was basic has been so useful. I'm willing to make a motion if it looks like enough arbs will support it. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandstein is correct that the 1RR restriction is not part of the decision, nor is it a discretionary sanction supported by the decision. Rather, it was a community-based remedy, established by consensus during this discussion. There is nothing wrong with this. There are a couple of issues though:
  1. the notice of the 1RR restriction on the case page (and on article talk pages) should be altered to describe it as a community-based remedy, or removed to some other appropriate page, to avoid confusion;
  2. there is unfortunately no convenient venue for enforcement requests on such community-based sanctions, personally I have no problem with arbitration enforcement being used just as a matter of convenience, but otherwise ANI would make do.
--bainer (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no reason for ArbCom to intervene with a community-imposed sanction. (Indeed, I would encourage administrators and the community to impose sanctions as necessary without the intervention of ArbCom.) Additionally, an administrator could simply warn someone who is edit-warring or otherwise disruptive that the topic area has seen a lot of problems and that disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. (It would be advisable to be polite and clear about the problem, directing the editor to any relevant policy pages and giving a bit of guidance about how to better work with others on Wikipedia.) Upon a repeat performance of disruption, the person can be sanctioned or blocked, without bureaucratic hurdles or reliance upon the particulars of an ArbCom decision. I have no particular objection to issues being raised at AE for areas subject to arbitration enforcement, but ANI would be appropriate if the AE regulars find this undesirable. --Vassyana (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing much further to add. Will vote on a motion to write the sanctions into the case if needed, pending feedback from those John asked to be contacted. But leaving as a community-based sanction (per bainer's description) would also work. Carcharoth (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • One concern with a community-based sanction is the lack of anywhere to log sanctions. It is not acceptable for such restrictive sanctions not to be logged. Future admins or arbitrators trying to review the situation need an accurate log of actions taken and sanctions issued, whether following arbitration cases or using community-based sanctions. Strongly suggest logging (or continuing to log) at the case pages for now. Carcharoth (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No admin is required to enforce any Wikipedia policy or any sanction (be it an ArbCom or Community Sanction) but that does not stop the sanction from being enforced my other admins. Unless there is a problem with the Community sanction that can not be worked out by the Community, I see no need for action by the Committee. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Concur with Stephen Bain and FloNight (and kudos to rlevse).  Roger Davies talk 14:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; I think that the tenor here is that this community sanction has ArbCom's imprimatur, and that AE is a logical place to bring enforcement (even if strictly out of scope). — Coren (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, agree with Flonight, since it's a community sanction then there's nothing we really need to do. Wizardman 20:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: User:Thomas Basboll

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

Statement by Tom harrison

Last April, User:Thomas Basboll was banned[67] from articles and talk pages related to the September 11 attack. Since then he's hardly done anything else, limiting his work to user pages. He's always civil and articulate; individual edits can seem reasonable. But his goal here has been and remains to get the truth out about the collapse of the World Trade Center. Whatever his motivation, no matter how he describes or intends his edits, their invariable result has been to promote conspiracy theories about 'controlled demolition'. He has shown no interest in contributing in any other area; he's banned from that area; he continues his work in a sandbox, and invites others to edit on his behalf.[68] If encouraging others to apply edits he can't make himself doesn't violate the letter of his topic ban it's at least contrary to its purpose, and continually beating the drum for the 9/11 conspiracy theories is a continuing disruption. Tom Harrison Talk 14:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thomas Basboll

Update: I have decided withdraw my opposition to this request, shut down the sandbox experiment, and stop interacting with editors.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure an all out arbitration is necessary. If the topic-ban applies to user talk pages and my own sandbox then I am in the wrong and will stop immediately. If it does not, I think Tom Harrison needs to provide a bit more evidence that, on balance, the "invariable result [of my edits] has been to promote conspiracy theories about 'controlled demolition'". In the one case where a user has objected to my use of his talk page, I have respected that wish, but otherwise my suggestions have been met with understanding and have been implemented (or not) as the user I contacted chose. I have not asked users to edit "on my behalf"; I have pointed out errors in articles to them and sometimes suggested prose that I believed could express an idea they were defending in talk discussions. I'm really am just trying to help.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply to John Vandenberg (below): Since I am not site-banned, I have not considered contacting ArbCom by email. Those two public appeals are the only attempts I have made to have the ban overturned.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on MONGO's evidence (below): The puzzling thing about the examples is that the changes I have suggested by (arguably) "proxy" remain in the articles, often made by editors on the "other side". I think the policy is clear here, and since I have not recruited new users, meat-puppetry is not at all involved. I have only contacted people who are already interested in the articles, and I have provided information that they could themselves verify. Most puzzling: in the exchange that led to MONGO asking me not to post on his talk, I actually managed to convince him that I was right, and the article has been correct ever since. MONGO himself corrected the error I was indicating [69]. So even though he himself has confirmed my suggestions (as the rules on proxying require) and implemented them, he is now suggesting that my inquiries constitute a violation of the proxy rules, i.e., rules that he himself, by implication, would have been violating by implementing my suggestion.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS. As Mongo notes below, his edit involved more than the change I was proposing. But I had not raised any other issues in my exchange with him. So he implemented my suggestion among others. My point still stands: Mongo introduced an error and I pointed his mistake out to him. He then fixed it. The article was improved by my action. Though I don't think I actually broke a rule here, I think this might at least have been an occasion to WP:IGNORE it.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to John Vandenberg 2 (below): Something like what you propose (editing other parts of WP to establish credibility in the community) has been suggested to me many times before, as Mongo also does on this occasion. I have never understood the argument. My editorial judgment has been rejected at the highest level (when ArbCom rejected my appeal). If that rejection stands in this topic area, why do you assume that I would do a fine job elsewhere? Assuming that my topic ban is justified (i.e., that my judgment is defective), then, the current solution of having my suggestions vetted through editors whose judgment has not been similarly impugned seems quite reasonable. But you will have to forgive me for not finding the place I have been assigned in the community especially motivating in regard to contributing to the larger project.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to John Vandenberg 3 (below): Okay, it makes sense when understood as pragmatism. But that's why I have stopped editing: the pragmatic reality of Wikipedia is too far from the principled ideal that originally got me interested in the project. I could spend hours, days and weeks trying to prove people wrong by working in other areas or at Wikisource. But, just as you economize with your time, I economize with mine. In any case, please keep in mind that Tom Harrison is asking whether my current actions (my sandbox page and inquiries on user pages) is a violation of the current pragmatic solution, i.e. the topic-ban. While it would be great of you (generous, actually) to use the opportunity to look into the original ban, my view is that even if the ban had been justified what I am doing now is within the spirit, and well within the letter, of the sanctions. Like I say, if that's not the case, I will delete the page and withdraw altogether.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Vassyana and Carcharoth (below): I may as well be clear that I am not interested in any further demonstration of my worth to this project. Two other editors are asking that stricter limits to my contribution to this project be imposed. If they get their wish, you will simply not hear any more from me. Otherwise, I will continue, in my limited way, to assist those editors who want my help in identifying errors, assessing sources, and representing them in prose on a topic that (for reasons that need not concern anyone here) happens to interest me. I will use my account, so long as it is not site-banned, to query editors about their editing decisions so that I may better understand how Wikipedia works. Some editors do want my help; it is their work, not mine, that any further sanctions against me will affect. Those that don't want my input will not notice my presence. My interpretation of being banned "from the September 11 attack article and talk page, and the articles and talk pages of all related articles" as not covering user-talk pages and my own sandbox was made in good faith and I have made no effort to conceal my topic-ban. Indeed, I have made a point of informing all users that I have contacted of the fact that I am banned. I take very serious exception to the idea that I am "gaming" this site. Thank you very much.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: While I have withdrawn from this dispute, I would like to add a quick comment on Vassyana's answer to this issue. As I undertand the concept of WP:GAMING there is no such thing as doing it unintentionally. So I take it that granting that it may have been done in good faith is a retraction of the charge. If so, I appreciate it. I did not intentionally violate the spirit of my topic ban in order to subvert the project; I made an attempt to improve the encyclopedia within what I believe was a reasonable interpretation on the constraints of the ban. Many of my suggestions have been implemented in full view of the editors who supported my banning. My actions did not cause disruption. If they were unwise it is only because they have, predictably, been used to cast further aspersions on my motives.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to Carcharoth (below): Are you really suggesting that I can do a bunch of work to write nice clear sentences that might be used in the article but that I am not allowed to discuss that work with people who freely choose to engage in such discussion?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cs32en

The ban against Thomas Basboll had been based on reasons "described by Jehochman" [70]. However, Jehochman has advised Thomas Basboll as follows: "I think it might be worthwhile to write a crisp version of the article in your sandbox ..." [71]. So this is, in my opinion, best left to the community to sort out, at this point of time. --Cs32en (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

More of the same...Basboll has been topic banned from editing all pages related to the events surrounding 9/11...this includes conspiracy pages, where he has been an advocate. Arbcom may not be familiar with this issue, but I surely am, and our server space is not to be used to sidestep topic bans using personal sandboxes or others usertalk to rally a cause for which one has been topic banned...topic bans should mean just that...one is banned from the topic, regardless of the location. I have stated repeatedly that AFTER Basboll was topic banned that, based on his obvious articulateness, that he must be educated and surely...surely, he could and should help out with other areas that are not related to those he is topic banned from. I tried to encourage him to do so...but instead, he continues his fixation on this subject matter...though of course, outside main article space. WP:MEAT applies in this case...a topic banned editor, especially one who has been known to advocate fringe theories, shouldn't be encouraging others of similar POV [72] and discouraging those that base their work on known evidence...as Basboll did to me here...which resulted in my asking him to avoid my usertalk if he was going to use it for his 9/11 issues. Furthermore, major collaborative pieces should be worked on in article space in my opinion...creating sandboxes pages when we already have working long standing pages that can be improved only allows topic banned people a way to avoid sanction from being topic banned...

So can arbcom help clarify for Mr. Basboll what a topic ban implies and maybe succeed where I failed and encourage him to find some other topic to edit? I'm hoping that this is the case...--MONGO 00:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Jehochman below...though I surely appreciate that we don't want to suppress beliefs, Basboll is topic banned...that means banned from editing on that topic...as far as I can see, that means we don't allow them to use likewise thinking fellow editor's usertalks to rally support for their POV, especially a POV that is based on fringe theories that undermine the factual encyclopedic integrity of our articles. Furthermore, setting up sandboxes to update sections, write new articles or alter existing ones related to what the editor is topic banned from seems to be a breach of the purpose of the topic ban...so we have millions of other articles...Wikipedia exists for Mr. Basboll as a platform to advocate his fringe beliefs regarding 9/11...he has had almost zero other interest in any other area...if he can't find another area to edit and repeatedly violates his topic ban...why is he here anymore?--MONGO 03:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples where he has been approaching others to alter edits and or comment in articles he is topic banned from...to be fair, some of these are from those he does not share a POV with...[73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [ here he comments at arbcom enforcement regarding the same topic he is topic banned for[79], here he tells one of his fellow (to put it nicely) alternative theorists all about me...[80], here he tries to defend a fellow 9/11 conspiracy theorist that is blocked [81]...I can easily produce more examples of Mr. Basboll violating his topic ban. More needs to be done to tell these single purpose accounts to go find another playground.--MONGO 03:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Basboll above..the link he provides [82] where he claims I changed wording to reflect, as he puts it, the correct wording, only applies to the word "adjacent"..the remaining red changed text was added by me after great arguments and is reflected in the references provided. Regardless, this was part of the exchange that led me to ask him to cease using my talkpage to violate his topic banning.--MONGO 05:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman (b)

Thomas seems polite and I have been polite in return. If he's not banned from editing is his sandbox, then he is allowed to do so. As I understand, he is free to edit there. Everybody has some sort of POV. We don't ban editors for what they believe; we ban them by how they act. If Thomas supports WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V, I see no problems. If however he's playing me the fool, well, that would be a poor idea. Jehochman Talk 02:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ikip

The arbitration remedy clearly states:

"Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted)"

Thomas's topic ban was a bad ban by an involved administrator: Raul654. Raul654 edited 7 World Trade Center‎ (16 times), argued against editors who support a controlled demolition (at least 8 times), and reverted 7 World Trade Center‎ then protected the page, in violation of Wikipedia:Admin#Misuse_of_tools.


This text has never been posted before:

What is an "uninvolved administrator"?:

As my edit diffs clearly show, Raul has previously participated in "content disputes on articles in the area of conflict."

Therefore I ask that the topic ban be immediatly lifted, as a highly involved administrator made it.

Raul654 have you ever had a dispute on 7 World Trade Center? The edit diffs above show clear content disputes on 7 World Trade Center. Ikip (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Raul654

Ikip is rehashing - verbatim - the same argument he put forth the last time around - the very same argument that was explicitly rejected by the one and only arbitrator to comment on them ("I see Raul654's actions here as being in line with the AC's decision, and support them." -Morven) To wit - I have edited the 9/11 articles on occasion, and I make sure that they remain free of conspiracy theories and other gibberish, which is fully in line with our policies about verification and neutrality. (That is to say, conspiracy theories do not produce reliable sources - they mostly rely on cutting away context and ignoring all dissenting evidence.) Thomas is an editor whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is to introduce conspiracy theories into our 9/11 articles. While he is polite, his editing on those articles is singularly counterproductive, as Mongo above attests to. I was never particularly active on those articles, and my participation predates Thomas - I mostly stopped editing them by the time he started here. Which means I am uninvolved both in the sense of (a) editing on those articles, and (b) interacting with Thomas. (The arbitration committee, I believe, intended the ban to apply to the latter case). In either case, I am not involved, and fully capable of assessing the utility of a ban application. Raul654 (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, to answer Ikip's question above, my involvement on 9/11 articles has been almost entirely related to 7 World Trade Center. This article is a featured article, and I'm the FA director, which is the reason it's on my watchlist -- I want to keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn't decay. Most 9/11 conspiracy theories center around the destruction of this building, so it's a perpetual favorite target for conspiracy theory SPAs. The consensus on the talk page, predating its FA status and my involvement there, was that because we already have articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories and World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, the article would briefly mention the existence of conspiracy theories and link to the relevant articles, but not go beyond that to avoid giving them undo weight. (To avoid mentioning them elsewhere in the article so that readers do not get the false impression that they are credible or have evidence to support them.) My edits there have been about enforcing this consensus. Enforcing a reasonable consensus formulated by others before I got there hardly makes me an involved admin. Raul654 (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Ikip's citations of "involvement" include reverting trivia and fixing typos on the talk page, I hope it's clear to anyone reading this that his "evidence" consists of a list of all edits I've made to any 9/11 articles (and talk pages) in the last 5 years, regardless of whether or not they actually involve conspiracy theories and regardless of whether or not they relate to Thomas in any way (which they don't). And given this extraordinarily low bar for "involvement", the fact that he could only come up with about two dozen edits in the last 5 years shows that he really is grasping at straws. Raul654 (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Pokipsy76

1) The historical recostruction by Vandelberg is incomplete: Actually only one arbitrator replied to the request of appeal (and btw this arbitrator was asked two times to explain his position here and here but he didn't reply). Later, when the request was archieved, another arbitrator said that this kind of requests have to be asked to AN/I (so the appeal was not "rejected" but just ignored). Therefore there was a request for a review at WP/ANI where other 3 uninvolved administrators said that:

  • there had been "insuffient review and stonewalling of requests for review"
  • "a review of the ban decision is probably appropriate"
  • "The edit does seem to reduce the overall weight provided to the conspiracy theorists in the article, in addition to moving the detailed statement of the theory out of the lead"
  • "there are legitimate questions to be asked about the fairness and propriety of this topic ban"

Positions against Thomas Basboll or against the review of the ban had been expressed only by involved administrators who contributed to the ban. "Unfortunately" this request for a review was deleted by the bot after a period of 24 hours without new messages. And so Thomas couldn't have a review for bourocratic reasons - even if there was a consensus on the necessity of it since the arbotrators didn't express.

1bis) It is very paradoxical that we follow mechanically the rules when the bot delete the request and so leave Thomas banned without appeal and we now instead pretend to apply the "spirit" of the rules - not the letter - when Thomas talk with other users. It looks very much as a persecutory behavior.

2) To say (as Tom Harrison does) that

the invariable result [of his edits] has been to promote conspiracy theories about 'controlled demolition'.

is a personal and disputable point of view of Tom who as far as I can see has never had a "neutral" perception of this matter when he contributed to the pages. Even if the arbitrators would share the same point of view of Tom Harrison about 9/11 it shouldn't be relevant in their decisions: arbitration is not for disputes about article content.

3) To say (as Tom Harrison does) that

continually beating the drum for the 9/11 conspiracy theories is a continuing disruption.

is meaningless because a) nobody has even proved that thomas have been disruptive, the sanction he received was *discretionary* so it was just the personal opinion of the admin which didn't receive any support or even a review by the community, b) it is entirely possible that the suggestions of Thomas are indeed conctructive, you cannot judge them "a priori" just on the ground of your personal POV.

4) Coren says:

As a further note, I don't believe there is any reasonable interpretation of Raul's handful of edits that could lead to count him as "involved" by any sane meaning of the term.

The problem is that the arbcom has explicitely defined the meaning to be given to the term "involved" ("For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict.") and it makes Raul "involved" without a doubt. If this meaning is considered to be "insane" by somebody it is not relevant here.

--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Tossing up some background discussions for everyone; no comment yet. At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive20#Thomas Basboll the thread is closed as "Thomas Basboll banned from 9/11 articles, appealing to ArbCom." Thomas, did you appeal to arbcom via email? We can find the email if you can tell us when you sent it. There was a public appeal at WP:RFAR in May 2008, and a later one at WP:AE in October 2008. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thomas, your article contributions over the last 12 months are extremely light on, your userpage says you are retired, and you're doing a lot of chatting. I am seeing more noise than signal. How about you come out of retirement, focus on some supplementary topics, and then appeal the topic ban in a few months. As an example of how you could remain engaged in this topic productively, despite the topic ban, you could work on Operation Northwoods, World Trade Center (PATH station), Minoru Yamasaki, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, etc; or, for something different you could expand the archives over Wikisource (see s:Template:911). John Vandenberg (chat) 04:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thomas, your editorial judgment has been questioned by editors in the 9/11 topical area, a few admins, and two previous arbitrators (Raul654 and Morven) have found it appropriate to ban you from that topic. The review by arbcom in April 2008 only obtained a single opinion, that of Morven. Morven's motivations may have simply been pragmatic, as the same set of editors opined that they found it advantageous to have you topic banned. Your response to this has been to stop editing; my recommendation is that you prove everyone wrong by editing other areas. If you have problems in another topical area, that would be telling. If you dont have problems in another topical area, that would give us a damn fine reason to re-evaluate your topic ban.
      That said, it is not unusual for a person to have a problem editing in only a limited range of topics; their edits to other topical area's are fine. Even if you did (previously) have a problem editing 9/11 articles, we might decide that we can lift the topic ban because we trust that you are now capable of managing your own POV issues. Note that I am not saying that you do have a problem editing 9/11 topics; I've only spent an hour reading all the comments and looking at a few of your edits.
      Your lack of edits in other area's mean I have no option but to either a) trust the other editors opining here, or b) invest a day (or more) reviewing your edits. Perhaps you can see that pragmatism makes me want to create a third option: you demonstrate that you are able to edit productively in other areas and I will invest the time to review your edits. I do appreciate that you may not want to take this third path; but you cant blame me for trying, right? I also suggested that you come on over to Wikisource for a while, and build our collection of related primary sources. This will give you good reason to collaborate with 9/11 editors here on Wikipedia, and then the comments at the next topic ban appeal will be more favourable to yourself.
      Could someone please notify Raul654 and Morven, as they may wish to comment. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A topic ban is a topic ban as far as I'm concerned. Using a sandbox and other users as a proxy for engaging in discussion is pretty clearly gaming the system in my eyes. Circumventing, or even dancing around the edges of, a ban is a terrible idea. At the absolute best, it shows an inability to walk away from the topic. Under such circumstances, I would strongly discourage the community and administrators from granting any allowances. Additionally, I would be opposed to any ban relief in the absence of complete separation from the topic and positive contributions in other areas. --Vassyana (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The system gaming may not have been intentional and I can accept that the actions were taken in good faith. However, utilizing a sandbox and other users to continue contributing (and advancing one's views) where topic-banned does amount to circumventing the topic ban, following the letter but certainly not the spirit of such a restriction. (This mechanical interpretation approach has been a rising concern in the community, of which cases like this are but a symptom. 3RR is the most common example, with many editors claiming that a failure to exceed three reverts either does not constitute disruptive edit-warring or is not a blockable offense, contrary to the explicit instructions of WP:3RR.) I would encourage the community to be more explicitly broad when instituting such bans at the community level and (as an individual arbitrator) I will support more clearly broad bans where topic bans are used in arbitration cases. Obviously, a topic ban is of greatly reduced value as an enforcement tool if the targeted editor is still permitted to maintain a POV fork in userspace, use other editors to proxy, and/or still otherwise engage in various discussions about the topic on-wiki. --Vassyana (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I recall correctly, I was one of those suggesting (at some point last year) that Thomas Basboll edit in other areas to demonstrate he is interested in building an encyclopedia, and not just a narrow set of articles. Failing that (and it is Thomas's choice alone), I would endorse John's other suggestions. This is not, however, to endorse making SPAs second-class citizens (that opens the door to experts working on single articles being driven off by opponents who have a more diverse editing history). What matters is, as always, the quality of the sources and arguments any editor brings to the table, their editorial judgment, and their ability to work collaboratively with others. That last one is particularly important for all editors working in any topic area. Carcharoth (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following up on what Vassyana said above, I would say that proxying is bad, but a sandbox can be helpful as long as the editor in question doesn't use the talk page as a forum to discuss things with others (who then proxy edit). Carcharoth (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, I would tend to encourage attempts at building consensus about a set of articles where an editor has had previous problems and from which they have been banned. However, the current attempts look more like attempts to seek out and coax possibly sympathetic editors in order to continue the POV campaign by proxy (in particular, I see no attempt to understand the importance of undue weight but only dedication to "get the truth out"). This sort of gaming is not appropriate, and may lead to further sanctions or the extension of the current ones. — Coren (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As a further note, I don't believe there is any reasonable interpretation of Raul's handful of edits that could lead to count him as "involved" by any sane meaning of the term. — Coren (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. I live and work in New York City about 4 miles from the World Trade Center site. I will adhere to my practice established last year of recusing myself from any disputes arising from the events of September 11, 2001, in part because I was profoundly personally affected by those events and in part because giving any sustained attention to the so-called, but fantastic and worthless, "controlled demolition hypothesis" as a purported explanation for what occurred on that date invariably leaves me enraged. I will remind all concerned that any suggestion that any identified or identifiable individual played any role in a "controlled demolition" of the World Trade Center buildings represents a BLP violation of the gravest nature. (I do not suggest that Thomas Basboll or any other specific editor is guilty of this offense.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Noting that my opinion of the situation mirrors Vassyana's. Wizardman 20:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=288473652"