Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) at 23:08, 5 October 2009 (→‎Statement by [insert User name]: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Quantum mysticism article   1 October 2009 {{{votes}}}
Tcaudilllg   1 October 2009 {{{votes}}}
Administrators aiding a sock puppet at RFA Motions 1 October 2009 {{{votes}}}
RS and Fringe Noticeboard   25 September 2009 {{{votes}}}
Law's unblock of ChildofMidnight Motions 20 September 2009 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Quantum mysticism article

Initiated by ☯Lightbound☯ talk at 20:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Likebox, [1].
  • OMCV, [2].
  • Peterdjones, [3].
  • William M. Connolley, [4].
  • Admin, RHaworth, [5].
  • Mbilitatu, [6].
  • Simonm223, [7].
  • Admin, Vsmith, [8].
  • Ronhjones, [9].
  • Count Iblis [10]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Third opinion request. [11]
  • A diff from user OMCV, asking administrator assistance: [12]
  • Another admin intervention on edit warring notice board: [13]

Statement by Lightbound

The Quantum mysticism page has a history of edit wars and conflicts. I responded to a request from OMCV on a help page. Edits resulted in User:Likebox being blocked.[14]. I interpreted the name of the article to dictionary sources and dozens of books on the subject as per WP:NAME and WP:POV. The debates continued despite talk page discussion before and after, blocks, other editors, and assistance. Request arbitration to end the reverts, edits, and conflicts. Article has long history of problems.

Response to Arbitrator request from filing party (Lightbound)

Due to the history of the page, I strongly recommend that outside force be used to set some standing issues with the page. Every other feasible attempt has been made, including administrator intervention, to solve the conflicting issues on this page. Below I will list some of the fundamental issues. Please note that no side was willing to relent until arbitration was filed.[15] I did not file arbitration for any other purpose than to have an outside party, with authority, address the specific fundamentals of the article, so that all parties concerned could continue in a unified way. I value the healthy rationlism, of which I subscribe, of those parties educated in physics. It is my strong opinion that if arbitration is denied, that debates will continue, unnecessarily, which may end up taking more administrative time and effort, or worse, that those editors concerned will simply give up and the quality of the article will suffer for it. I realize it is a potentially murky subject, but if arbitration goes forward, I am prepared to provide objective evidence, related to policy, as to address the issues on the page. Here are a few of the issues, of which few can agree on, and that future individuals are likely to also bring up in a debate.

  • What should the subject matter of an article named "quantum mysticism" be?
  • How to interpret WP:POV and WP:NPOV in light of the grey areas between the science, metaphysics, and philosophcial concepts of the subject.
  • Can the scientific criticism be exluded, if and only if, the subject of mysticism, based on the quantum of the natural world, is presented in a completley netural and disinterested voice?
  • The developing issue of redirects pointing to Quantum mysticism, such as Consciousness causes collapse, which has now spurred more debate and brought other editors into the above issues.

Lastly, I want to officially state that my goal for filing was to have someone make concrete and final decisions on some of these issues. Splitting the article does not solve all of its problems; it only solves a problem between two editors. There are multiple views, debates, and issues going on. The split is also questionable, as there is already a mind body duality article on Wikipedia. I also want to officially state that it was not my intention at any time, nor to I cite the need, to block anyone. It is clear that blocking Likebox will not stop him. As that has already not worked. Despite his interpretation that I am "new," I have been editing Wikipedia for nearly five years. I did not formally make this user name until recently, as I got more involved. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 19:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223

I came to Quantum Mysticism a few days before Lightbound because of this notice on the fringe theories noticeboard and found it a mess. There were two editors who had been competing over two versions of the page and neither struck me as neutral, properly designed or particularly legible. I tried to suggest a third option, a rewrite, but since I'm not a physicist I could only approach the article through my background in philosophy and theology. Although the article was approximating a position between religion, philosophy and science this still left me cautious to start making edits because I wasn't entirely expert in the material.

However Lightbound came to the article and had a vision for the article which made it coherent, clear, concise and much more encyclopaedic. I have strongly supported these edits, which I feel improved the article.

Lightbound has been meticulous documenting changes and proposed changes on talk and discussing the issues however when one of the other editors who had been involved prior to either of our arrival at the page was blocked there was little debate so changes progressed quickly.

That editor returned, found the page substantially changed and wasn't pleased.

However I stand by that Lightbound's edits have created an article better than what either of the original to editors had created and better than I could have created. Simonm223 (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Likebox

The topic of "quantum mysticism" appears in the literature in two distinct forms. From 1927-1975 it appears sporadically in the physics literature as a pejorative description of the Copenhagen interpretation by Einstein and others. It also appears in the correspondence of Wolfgang Pauli, describing the nature of quantum mechanics, but Pauli didn't use the term pejoratively. He admired the mystical aspects of quantum mechanics. In 1961, the separation of observer and observed was codified by Wigner into a quantum mind/body problem, and this article marks the rebirth of the debate in the postwar American-centered literature (the early scientific literature was European).

In the 1970s, Heisenberg encouraged Fritjof Capra to write "The dancing Wu-Li Masters" to popularize the topic. Starting with this book, and through the 1980's, "quantum mysticism" was turned into a new-age topic, with the publication of some popular books and self-help books. This is a second more recent focus of the term.

The original article, before lightbound's recent edits, discussed the physics aspects of quantum measurement, the subject of "quantum mysticism" in the years 1927-1975, and the relation to the mind/body problem. The recent edits have made the focus entirely the modern new-age/self-help literature. This is not a problem by itself, but the old material on the debate was not moved to other articles, it was just deleted.

Lightbound has suggested that the scientific material be separated into an article on quantum mechanics, and this suggestion seems sensible, considering that the two kinds of literature are entirely different. The basic outline that lightbound has provided is reasonable for a "quantum mysticism" article on the new topic, while the old material can be moved to the appropriate quantum mechanics page.

There used to be a free-standing article called "Consciousness Causes Collapse" (CCC), which focused on Wigner's 1961 paper. This article was deleted, and merged with "quantum mysticism". The new "quantum mysticism" article no longer reflects the contents of Wigner's article, so I recreated the CCC article as Wigner's interpretation of quantum mechanics. That article can serve as a home for the general discussion of interpretations of quantum mechanics which were previously on the quantum mysticism page.

Because the discussions on how to split the material are still ongoing, I believe that this arbitration request is premature. The material can be split and keep the quantum mysticism article mostly faithful to lightbound's version.

However, lightbound has also erased sourced material from critics of the modern new-age kind of quantum mysticism, which is inappropriate. That material should be restored to the article. This issue of excluding criticism is important. Lightbound's article must be expanded to include the sourced criticisms of quantum mysticism by prominent authors, which make the claim that this type of quantum mysticism is pseudoscience.Likebox (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that arbitration is unnecessary, since we seem to be converging on the split idea. Lightbound is relatively new to Wikipedia, and might not realize when arbitration is appropriate.Likebox (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since OMCV has considered my contributions inappropriate, I would like to describe the events from my perspective. The page on quantum mysticism was a standard skeptical article until consciousness causes collapse was merged into it. When I saw that this had happened, I added material which talked about the 1961 Wigner article, which is interesting and famous within physics. In order to respect the science, which is very serious (Wigner is a nobel lauriate, and a founder of quantum mechanics) I wrote a context for the material, spending many hours in the library to find the appropriate citations. This material was unchallenged for over a year.
OMCV came to the page, and did not believe that the material was properly sources. In particular, he was concerned that the material from Dennett did not accurately reflect Dennett's position. He also was concerned about the idea that quantum mechanics is being used as a model of reality in the article, as opposed to a strictly empirical recipe for calculating the probabilities for results of observations.
We debated this topic for a long time, and eventually, I changed the wording to be "Dennett says X" and "Dennett says Y" to attribute the material properly. At this point, OMCV did not respond any longer, and lightbound began to delete all the science content from the page.
I have been contributing to Wikipedia for many years, and I have written dozens of articles on scientific topics sometimes from scratch. The opinions of OMCV were debated honestly, the section in question became better sourced, and while OMCV did not like my opinions, they were supported by other scientifically minded editors, in particular 1Z and Count Iblis. The article on quantum mysticism has been split, the science moved to another article, and there is no reason why this should not satisfy all parties.Likebox (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

There isn't anything more that this arbitration can achieve that the involved editors can't do themselves on the talk page, other than imposing sanctions. But if this arbitration were to move in the direction of imposing sanctions, you can be sure that the existing tensions will be amplified and that will likely make collaboration impossible. Count Iblis (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OMCV

I came to Quantum mysticism after noting a misrepresentation of classical mechanics and making an attempt to correct the problem. My efforts to correct this material was reverted by Likebox. I then tagged which sections needed sourcing and that was reverted. I then demanded on what source the section was based multiple times and was eventually told on my talk page. I read the source (where am i) and become more familiar with it than Likebox. The contested text was clearly an example of Synth. The discussion developed into specious arguments and etiquette issues. The most frustrating part is that Likebox would conveniently forget or not understand things and often his talk page activities did not match his behavior on the article itself. His veiled personal comments, familiar tone ("dude"), and repeated requests to "go away" were a minor annoyance in comparison. Likebox has since admitted that he his material is synth and described his personal opinions (first few added paragraphs) which correlates with the synth. Lightbound reworked all of Quantum mysticism considerably improving it by moving to a more encyclopedic voice and in the process removing the synth and the text I added in an attempt to comprise. After attempting to revert Lightbound's work Likebox was blocked (near bottom). Likebox responded to this setback by moving his WP:OWNed essay material to quantum mind/body problem including the synth quantum mind/body problem#Classical mind/body problem which originally brought me to the Quantum mysticism page. During this time I did my best to follow WP:Dispute Resolution. I responded to the situation with a NO OR Board (no response), WP:3O request (conflicting responses), WP:Wikiquette alerts (here), I reported both of us for edit waring (3RR noticeboard), and a couple of RfC. I understand that this page might concern a content issue but should that be the content of Quantum mysticism or quantum mind/body problem? The reason a content discussion has not been viable is the active disruptions of Likebox in an attempt to wp:own his essay. I think Likebox is a detriment to Wikipedia given his current behavior and it would be best to implement a long term block.--OMCV (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If any further citations are requested I can readily supply them.--OMCV (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 2over0

Part of this material is covered by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions, about which at least Likebox (I did not check any of the other editors) does not seem to have received a formal notification. Quantum mind/body problem has serious problems as a fork and partial recreation of a deleted article, but I think this can be cleared up through normal discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Michael C. Price

The (re)creation of Quantum mind/body problem seems to remove the need for arbitration. This article is evolving productively with input from many of the involved editors. Conflict over. Resolved. --Michael C. Price talk 07:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Could the filing party please address whether arbitration is necessary here or whether other means could be used to try to resolve these disputes, in light of the other parties' comments. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaning toward decline based on the most recent statements, but allowing a couple more days in case of developments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. Vassyana (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline Other methods of dispute resolution are helping so no involvement needed by ArbCom. I think the Community can resolve the issues so no need to escalate to ArbCom. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline; it appears as though this can still be handled by the community with reasonable odds of success. — Coren (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tcaudilllg

Initiated by Rmcnew (talk) at 17:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:rmcnew

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tcaudilllg

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-09-16/Socionics

Statement by Rmcnew

Initial statement: Tcaullldig has been making unnecessary reverts to user contributions with insufficent reasons, many of the reasons being solely personal attacks. He is generally uncooperative with the other editors. He fails consistently to provide verifiable sources to wikipedias standards with his own contributions, while at the same time removing information from the article that meets the standard. He intends to force his opinion into the article by saying that certain ascpects are 'fringe theory', when they are supported widely by verifiable sources. By verifiable sources this includes sources from ".edu" domain names, peer reviewed and PHD certified web sources. He should stop editing the contributions of other editors and he should stop making reverts for insufficent reasons. --Rmcnew (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edited addition to initial statement: He should stop making ad hominem attacks on character in order to justify making reverts for insufficent reasons. Wikipedia is about finding credible sources to post. It has nothing to do with removing source material that meets wikipedia standards because you have dillusional ideas of other editors that equate to personal attacks. Source evidence of personal attacks to justify reverts is found in tcaudillligs statement below. His claim that I am a "cult leader" who proclaims himself "God" and wants to "start a religion" is completely and utterly rediculous. Other claims are just false, libelous, or based on half-truth versions of real events.

Objection: I object to various comments here made by tcaud and therefore they should be removed by the clerk or the arbitrator.

Response to NYB

I see the potential that the dispute can be resolved in the event that tcaud agrees that official socionic institute sources confirm that various forms of esotericism (including pseudoscientific and protoscientific methods) are present in socionics theory, whatever their origion, and therefore ceases and decists from removeing material from out of the article that adresses this fact and conveys these topics neutrally.

I should also note that I have challenged Tcaud numerous times to produce viable sources to his counter claims, where he fails. In stead of posting proper sources, he has resorted to numerous white lie schemes where he has projected his own opinion onto other people who do not share his opinion, makeing seem as though his opinion is shared by people who do not share his opinion. For example, Tcaud mentioned Rick Delong. Rick Delong is actually in agreement that the founder ausura augusta herself had scientifically and speculativelly experiemented with chakras and hindu philosophy, and that socionics is pseudoscience and protoscience, but tcaud makes it seem as though he is in agreement with his counter-opinion that socionics is something scientific and no esotericism is involved, which is false. When I produce official socionic sources that are either from an official socionics school and/or PHD verified that show this to be a widespread thing in socionics theory, instead of allowing the material (or at the very least go out and find credible counter sources) he just makes up a bunch of credible sounding (excuse my language) bullshit that relays his opinion deceptivelly, in order to counter the sources that meet wikipedias standard for sources. Despite my hedgeing that he produce sources that are up to wikipedias standards that support his arguments, he has continually failed to produce any sources for any of his bullshit claims, yet he keeps spouting them. And he keeps useing his bullshit based on white lies, usually coupled with personal attacks, as reasons unto themselves to keep this information out of the article.

Wtatever tcaud is doing and for whatever reason, he should cease and decists immediatelly from removing anything out of the socionics article that is properly sourced. And also to stop bullshitting and actually find sources that actually support his claims, which he continually fails to do. That is all that I am requesting about tcaud. And that is it. To quote PHD verified sources worthy of inclusion on wikipedia that support his opinions and at the same time stop making reverts on material this is properly sourced and opposite his own view. He keeps doing it. --Rmcnew (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Tcaudilllg

Tcaud just somehow managed again to make a large string of ad hominem attacks on my character in order to avoid doing anything credible himself. Saying that I have claimed myself to be "God" and that I am a "cult leader", and want to "start a religion" is just completely rediculous and libelous. his self-involved bullcrap (especially the bullcrap he just invented) as a reason to avoid responsibility for his own actions has absolutly nothing to do with wikipedia nor does it have anything to do with the fact that tcaud completely fails to post any credible sources concerning socionics, while he removes material that is from a credible sources. Ad hominem attacks belong off of wikipedia. Go somewhere else with that bullcrap. This is exactly the sort of bullshit he keeps doing that should stop. And they definatelly do not justify reverts.

Summary: Tcaud just made another ad hominem attack in order to avoid taking responsibility for his own actions. Instead of doing something constructive, like finding credible sources, he just makes personal attacks, and those are his weird dilussional reasons for making his reverts. Can an administrator please warn tcaud about doing this?

Objection: I object to various comments here made by tcaud and therefore they should be removed by the clerk or the arbitrator.

Response to Tcaudilllg @Manning comment

Tcaullldig stated:

@Manning: I think you need to reread what McNew says and confront him directly. McNew is a supremely bad faith character. He will not be negotiated with: he does not compromise. I've done all the compromising. Past this point: no way. He wants to make socionics what it isn't. I'll tell you some things about Rmcnew:

I advise you to ignore tcaudillligs ad hominem and libelous remarks that I am a "cult leader" who believes himself to be "God" and "wants to start a religion". I also object to being called a "loner crank", whatever that is. These claims are completely and utterly false, and these are reasons tcaud has been using to make reverts. I should note that I fully understand and comply with wikipedias standards to write material based on credible and PHD verified sources, and have done my best to do this. It should be therefore noted that tcaud has continually failed to find any sources for his claims other than making false, wild, crazy and libelous acusations. I believe tcaudilllig should only be allowed to edit wikipedia in the event that he becomes an asset to the cause of wikipedia. Making ad hominem remarks to other editors as an exceuse to avoid the responsibility of creating quality articles, based on PHD and credible based sources should be a red flag that tcaud has little to offer wikipedia. In that event, I recommend that tcaud be warned to cease these ad hominen remarks towards other editors or to be blocked from making reversions. I object to many of his claims, which are just either false, exagerrated, or rediculous and libel.

Further response in lue of more easy to follow data on my position

My only interest on wikipedia is to improve the quality of the socionics article by finding better source links that truly define socionics in general and in all aspects. Whether or not this is purpose of editing is shared by other editors is debatable. Most of my wonderings into comparisons between hermeticism and socionics were simply inquiries into understanding the methods of socionics and how it is similar and dissimilar to other things. I believe that doing so helped to discover valuable source links that can be used in the socionics article, which was my intention. The article itself was lacking sources and in the way it challenged me to find those sources. Before tcaud began his ad hominen attacks and unnecessary reverts I was translating information and bringing links out of the russian wikipedia socionics article. That is all. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call for removal of ad hominem attacks by tcaud throughout his entire statement

Tcaudillligs whole statement in this arbitration section is basically just one big slew of ad hominem attacks. Can someone please remove it? I don't appreciate being called a cult leader. And how come his ad hominem attacks are viewable while not logged in while mine are not seen unless logged in? That happened after I made the request for tcauds ad hominem attacks to be removed.

Update

I noticed that Manning has withdrawn his comment. I should note that I feel that relations with other editors are going well. I also currently approve of the recent edits by Rick Delong, which I believe conveys socionics accurately. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tcaudilllg

I'm not getting into this. If you want to talk about my conduct, ask an admin.

Alright, fine. Basically, rmcnew is a loner crank, as proposed in WP:Expert Retention, and he's trying to use Wikipedia to paint the field of socionics typology and relation theory, which is by-in-large populated by non-cranks, as an esoteric science which, in his view, derives directly from medieval alchemy. Now he has secured a (technically) reliable source to back up his claim, but this source, according to people whom are associated with the students of the founder of socionics -- people who knew her and now lead the field -- is actually quite bogus and if anything, is by a crank who managed to beat the odds and become a PhD. Now we've got at least one of these associates, User:Rick DeLong, who is disputing the relevance of the source. There is good reason to believe that DeLong knows what he is talking about: he has organized numerous meetings of socionics enthusiasts in the West, and has reported on numerous Russian language materials. These reports, moreover, have been corroborated by at least one other practitioner of socionics. (as rmcnew knows only too well, because he presided for two years over the forum where most of that discussion took place). Both DeLong and the other individual, User:Dmitri Lytov, are users of Wikipedia. (if I recall correctly, Lytov created the original article).
Wikipedia being the well known resource that it is, there is a decent chance that rmcnew can actually succeed in giving people the wrong impression about socionics by use of its articles, particularly because few people know about socionics in the western hemisphere. We urge that the committee rule the source in question unreliable, and if necessary, topic block rmcnew from editing socionics-related articles. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Manning: I think you need to reread what McNew says and confront him directly. McNew is a supremely bad faith character. He will not be negotiated with: he does not compromise. I've done all the compromising. Past this point: no way. He wants to make socionics what it isn't. I'll tell you some things about Rmcnew:
  • He bought the16types.info domain, and its forum, in 2006. Mostly he stayed out of the way until Fall 2008, when he announced to all that he was a god. He explained to us that he was determined to become powerful and that running the16types.info was practice for gaining more power.
  • Last January he announced he was selling the forum on Ebay. He eventually sold it for $100, under a contract deal with another user of the16types.info. He had announced that he intended to teach the world "the truth" about socionics, and that he would host a "copy forum" next to the main one with an emphasis on esoteric content. But once they got the domain, the "royals", as the long-time users call themselves, turned on him.
  • Despite all that happened, you won't find a mention of Rmcnew on the forum today, because he threatened a C&D order against it if all traces of his name weren't removed from the database. (you see after all this, he'd become the butt of a lot of jokes). Go ask about it on the forum, though: they'll corroborate everything I've told you.
  • After that, Rmcnew started a new forum dedicated completely to metasocionics. (his hypothesis of a relationship between socionics and alchemy). I joined him because I thought he was actually going to do some quality original research and try to verify his hypotheses. Boy was I wrong. By the beginning of last month, he closed the site without comment (or warning to its membership, most of whom were more interested in what I had to say anyway).
  • So how did Rmcnew get here, exactly? By following me: there was something of a backlash against the more progressive trends in socionics by a number of people in the West socionics community. They expressed fear and trepidation at the possibility that socionics would gain a footing in Western society, apparently afraid it was a harbinger of catastrophic social upheaval. Moreover, DeLong and I had gotten into an argument over the organization of his "Wikisocion" project, and among other issues I felt that Wikisocion and the16types.info were taking an excessively behaviorist stance on socionics which is actually quite contrary to the beliefs of Augustinaviciute or her students. So I proposed to Rmcnew that we leave Wikisocion and improve the Wikipedia article. Little did I know that he had other designs in mind.... What followed is chronicled on Wikipedia itself: several editors got the wrong idea about socionics, thanks to his edits, and the entire article almost got deleted. Worse, all the type articles and the "trap" article I created to direct his energies away from the main article got merged into the main one, because neither I nor several other users were able to persuade the deletionists that socionics had no relation to esoterism. (thanks to Rmcnew) Which brings us to our PRESENT debacle, which has escalated by leaps and bounds over the past couple weeks.
  • You'll never get through to Rmcnew. He's a crank, pure and simple: he actually believes that astrology is real -- he always goes around telling people "as above, so below". You can't defeat someone like him in an argument because he is incapable of seeing that he's wrong. Once, on his former website, he extolled the virtues of subjectivity at the expense of objectivity, saying that when we argued with him we should only see things from his point of view and accept his logic as truth. He's a cult leader looking for a canvassing opportunity, and he thinks he's found it on Wikipedia. No really: this guy is a religion major who is trying to make a religion out of socionics. And to make a religion in this day in age, you've got to create a system of faith, amidst all this empirical evidence... meaning the only way to create a GENUINE system of religious faith is to conceive of a means to make everything objective seem subjective. Now what have we learned from organized religion? To nurture faith in people, it is required that they believe in things that are as unrealistic as possible. That is the sieve by which one understands Rmcnew: he is on a journey to discover and create the most faith-based religion conceivable. Tcaudilllg (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See McNew's thoughts here: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Hermeticism

Statement by Manning

I am the mediator on the above mentioned Mediation Cabal case. Informal mediation is ongoing and although it has been challenging, it has not yet reached a point in my opinion where it has failed. Hence I consider a request for arbitration to be premature at this moment. If informal mediation breaks down then formal mediation would be my recommended next step. Manning (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things have deteriorated considerably since I posted my statement above, so I am withdrawing my comment. Manning (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Please comment in your own sections. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should be opened soon - we're waiting for an arbitrator to offer to draft the case. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • There are problems here but I am not sure that we are at the stage where arbitration is necessary. Rmcnew, what is the status of the mediation and do you see any other means that this dispute could be resolved short of an arbitration case? Tcaudilllg, please provide a more substantive response to the request for arbitration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept. This situation is deteriorating rapidly and requires review, as witnessed not only by the parties' comments about each other above, but the posts on my talkpage. The parties are asked to bear in mind the following: (1) ad hominem abuse of one another is not helpful and should be removed, and (2) the arbitrators do not have the level of familiarity with the concepts involved in the articles that you do, so you need to explain your positions at a somewhat more basic level so that we have a chance of understanding them more clearly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept to look at the conduct of all involved parties. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept — Rlevse • Talk • 23:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept  Roger Davies talk 14:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept - complicated situation that needs review. Carcharoth (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept; given the deterioration of the situation. — Coren (talk) 11:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators aiding a sock puppet at RFA

Initiated by Jehochman Talk at 16:13, 1 October 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 Jehochman

At least two admins nominated or supported Law's request for adminship which ended at (101/23/4), while knowing full well [18][19] that the account had been used for persistent block evasion, and that the operator had been de-admined previously and blocked for nine months. Their motivation appears to have been close friendship with the operator of the Law account. I think this was a gross abuse of trust, and I call upon the Committee to remove sysop access. I and others have discussed how to proceed. Further discussion at WP:ANI is likely to only raise drama and accusations of drama mongering. An unenforceable RFC seems like a pointless step that would waste time and generate drama without a conclusive result. The facts are clear cut and I hope the Committee will be able to resolve this matter with a motion. Jehochman Talk 16:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with any result, but I want clarity:

  • Is Wikipedia a serious academic project or is it an MMORPG?
  • Do we tolerate subversion of our policies by popular insiders?
  • When administrators make a mistake like this, what is the consequence?

Jehochman Talk 16:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with David Shankbone below that it would be ideal for the community to handle this matter. However, I had Tznkai and others criticize me for raising the issue at WP:ANI. It's not nice to be called a "drama monger" for raising legitimate concerns. Where are we to have a proper community discussion? Who will maintain order? Regrettably, we are stuck with ArbCom as the only workable process until we invent something better. Friday and I both tried to develop a de-admin process, but it did not gain consensus. Jehochman Talk 20:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Jennavecia: When you want to invoke ignore all rules, do it publicly. Tell people up front why you are breaking the rules. The problem here is that you acted in secret, depriving others the chance to agree or disagree that with what you were doing. That's one reason why people are so upset. Jehochman Talk 12:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KillerChihuahua

  • An admin who willingly and unashamedly states her friends come before policy here might have her friends gratitude but she should not have Wikipedia's trust. Lara aka Jennavecia knew at the time of Law's Rfa that he was the undertow. When concern was expressed at the breach of trust implied in knowingly abetting the undertow in evading ArbCom sanctions, she responded "he's my best friend, get over it",[20] as well as "I'll always have his back no matter what"[21] and accused at least one of those voicing concerns of "causing drama". "No matter what" implies that no matter what policy a friend breaches, Lara will cover for them and assist them to evade repercussions.
  • An admin who knowingly aids and abets an editor's evasion of ArbCom's decision to limit them to one account, by knowingly nominating a sock account for adminship, is also grossly guilty of violating the community's trust. Nether should have the admin tools, having proven they are untrustworthy and place personal friendship over the community, the project, and policy. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Fozzie: the difference is that ArbCom can act. Rfcs cannot.
Comment to Majorly: Had it been User:the undertow who had stood for, and acheived, adminship I would indeed be happy. As it was, he was under ArbCom sanction not to have any more accounts, which renders your "thank them" a bit odd, to say the least. I fail to see in what alternate universe we should "thank" people for evading, lying, misleading, and circumventing the very policies they are bound to uphold. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question for FT2 - WTF are you talking about? I'm here now due to discussion on my talk page, as you can easily follow by looking at my contribs. I have zero idea what you're referencing as occurring in a previous month. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I see FT2 is trying to bring a comparison of the Geogre/Utgard case, in which Utgard was not a sock created to avoid ArbCom sanctions and never was either nomed or supported for Admin by Bishonen, and which was handled already by Geogre being desysopped, and this. I see the very tenuous similarity - there is a sock in both cases, after all - but reject the insinuations. I myself have two socks, who have done absolutely nothing - Puppy and The Puppy - but there is a difference between a legal sock and its use, and the illegal ban or block evading sock who is nominated for and supported for admin. I never defended Geogre or his sock, you;ll note, in spite of your nasty hints. I merely thought the Rfc on Bish was silly, and said so. You're welcome to your opinion on that little detail. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie

To quote this RfArb's creator, this would be "A pointless step to waste time and cause drama". While I have the greatest respect for Jehochman and KC despite past differences, I see no differences in a RfC and this RfArb. I don't see the ArbCom de-adminning either of them for their actions, and even if that were the case, I don't think a full-fledged RfArb would be anything but a time-waster and drama generator. It should be handled by motion, and possibly admonish Jennavecia and Glass Cobra for committing sins of omission, not comission. That's just my thoughts on it. SirFozzie (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a response to FayssalF's suggestion that we come up with something to update WP:ADMIN to deal with this kind of situation, this is what I came up with.

One of the key tests that determine who gets granted administrative tools at WP:RFA is the ability to use good judgment when it comes to Wikipedia disputes. An administrator must be trusted to use their best judgment to enforce Wikipedia's rules and regulations in an impartial way, without letting personal feelings towards participants color their judgment.

If an administrator has information that another user is violating Wikipedia's norms and/or policies, and is unable to act fairly and justly, should forward their information to a trusted neutral administrator, or if that is not possible, to the Arbitration Committee.

If an administrator is to found to be complicit in allowing or assisting other users in breaking Wikipedia's rules and policies, it may be considered bad judgment in the use of their administrative tools and in repeated or egregious cases, may lead to their administrative privileges being revoked.

I'm curious to see what folks think. SirFozzie (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Majorly

Overblown and unnecessary. Nominating a knowingly banned user, despite their productivity is probably not a good idea, because of the Wikipedians who obsess over bans and playing cops and robbers. Law returned to be a productive editor, and that is what he was. The people going after him have ended this. Lara and Glasscobra should be praised for getting a banned user to contribute to Wikipedia productively, instead of coming back with hundreds of sockpuppets and vandalising.

The only important thing is whether Wikipedia was made better with Law as an admin/editor. Undoubtedly, it was, until the witchhunters found out who he really was.

This is far too early for arbitration. I for one still trust Jennavecia and GlassCobra as administrators - they are in fact two of the better ones, and Wikipedia would lose out if they were desysopped. The game players, the wikipoliticians and the drama mongerers will probably win in their own way, but they are irrelevant. The encyclopedia matters much more, and both of them do a grand job administrating it.

Instead of taking this straight here, it should have been opened in an RFC. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way. Majorly talk 16:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact he managed to return and be a productive editor is all that really matters. The only policy that was broken was probably the sock one where he failed to disclose his former account. I don't see that as a big deal because overall his benefit to Wikipedia has been positive. If he had disclosed it, he would have been reblocked and we would have been worse off. Majorly talk 16:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree with Headbomb. No actual admin abuse has occurred, so there is no case. Please come back if/when some actual abuse has occurred. Majorly talk 16:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Friday

It's appropriate to bring this here. Jehochman has asked some relevant questions. Arbcom, please take the case. Do something about this, or say loud and clear that you will not. Friday (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Headbomb

Alright, I'm uninvolved here, and I don't know how this works but screw it, WP:IAR.

First I don't see what the whole thing is about. For a purposefully no-drama arbcom, I fail to see how it's anything but a drama request.

  • Has there been an abuse of admin powers?
    • No? Therefore, there's no problem.

And that's all there is to it really. No need for witch hunts, let's not demonize each other for the sake of "ideals". Lara supported her friend because she trusts him to do the right thing. Now I don't trust her friend (since I never seen him before, and ban evasions are a serious enough thing, but if what Majorly said above has any truth, then I might trust him upon reviewing his contributions and logs), and you probably don't either, but if we start chopping each other's head on matters as trivial as a support !vote because we disagree with the reasons of support, then you might as well chop the head of everyone who ever voted on RfAs.

So everyone take a chill-pill, stop being dicks, and let's go back to dealing with real problems rather than made up ones. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cube lurker

What occured here went beyond a "Sin of Ommision" when the admins in question nominated and supported in the RFA. This made a mockery on the concept of RFA by consensus, when admins knowingly and willfully hide esential facts from the community. This conduct unbecoming of an admin is severe enough so that I have no confidence in their adminship. At minimum they should be required to demonstrate that they still have community support via RFA.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JoshuaZ

I've disagreed with Jenna in the past and have argued with her over quite a few issues. However, I've always been confident that she had the best interests of the project at heart, even if we disagreed over what precisely those were and how best to achieve those ends. I am disappointed and no longer have that confidence. Both Jenna and GlassCobra have broken their trust with the community. They made no effort to tell the community that Law was Undertow. They made no effort to discuss Law's return with the ArbCom or quietly discuss the matter with the crats responsible for closing RfAs. In short, a decision was made based on personal feelings that overrode the good of the project and bypassed both the community and the ArbCom.

Moreover, claims that no harm resulted from these actions are simply not accurate. The unblock by Law of Child of Midnight looked very different in the context of Undertow's and CoM prior dealings. Even at that point, Jenna and GlassCobra apparently did not feel a need to alert the ArbCom about the surrounding circumstances. I'm forced to wonder if it occurred to either of them to even say something as mild as "hey, that's not a great idea given your prior conflict." This paragraph is in error. I was under the impression that Undertow and CoM had interacted previously but that's apparently wrong.

Such breaches of trust are extremely worrying. Moreover, Jenna has been completely unrepentant about her actions and stated unambiguously that she would always support Undertow due to their friendship. This isn't ok. Letting personal feelings get in the way like this is unprofessional and provides serious concerns. If someone is willing to undermine our processes like this then we should have zero confidence that the person isn't willing to provide friends with deleted revisions or even OTRS information. The situation as it stands is untenable and needs resolution. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I'm also disturbed that Jenna felt a need to be the admin who deleted Law's user page [22]. This shows a incredible lack of common sense when she could easily have had another admin do so. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another Addendum: Regarding Ultraexactzz remarks, aside from the valid response made by Peteforsyth, there is also a distinction between supporting someone in RfA or nominating. And a similar difference between supporting and the strong active support given by Lara in the RfA. Moreover, if other admins were aware at the time of the RfA and chose not to do anything that would be a genuine cause for concern. The seriousness here extends from the fact that GlassCobra nominated Undertow's sockpuppet knowing it was Undertow's sock and that Lara has stated repeatedly and strongly that she will assist friends even if it is to the detriment of the project. Similar remarks apply to FeydHuxtable's remark. Aside from the really unhelpful comparison to Stalinism, the analogy would have some tiny validity if it were "renounce your friend or we will ban you". That's not what is going on here. The concern is that Lara and Glass have shown that they are unable to separate their duties as admins from their friendships. That doesn't make them bad people. But it does mean that trusting them with the tools is extremely iffy. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Faysall

Such a motion would be good. But Lara has said essentially that she won't be professional, that she will put her friends before her professional obligations. If she and GlassCobra made statements that they understand what was wrong and that they will act professionally in the future that might be a good solution. But from the statements we've had so far, it doesn't look like there's any reason to think that they would actually follow such. If they commented here it might help clarify the situation better. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Jenna's remarks

While Jenna's remarks are not in Macbeth's "full of sound and fury signifying nothing" category, they don't address the most fundamental issue: Does Jenna intend to continue to put her personal judgment over the judgment over the community and to withold information from the community when she decides it will benefit her friends? The statement as given seems to be do very little to increase confidence that she will not do so in the future, merely that she won't do this particular narrow thing again. Moreover, I'm disturbed by her pseudo-apology which a) fails to substantially recognize what was wrong with her actions and b) resorts to continued mud-throwing at users whom she has had bad interactions with in the past. This is not sufficient clarification. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moreschi

Wikipedia is not a MMORPG. Adminship is not the same as being a member of a guild on World of Warcraft. Friendship and loyalty do not come above your duty as sysop to act truthfully and not to deceive the community. If you find this doctrine unacceptable then you should no longer be a sysop, and the tools should either be removed forcefully or those concerned in practicing a fraudulent lie on the community should step down voluntarily. Because that RFA was the practice of such a fraudulent lie, and those responsible should be held to account, eitherwise we might as well delete WP:SOCK. In my years as an editor and sysop I have never seen anything like this, and nor do I wish to again. Casliber's sins were minor in comparison with those who actively practiced deception. Moreschi (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Karanacs
In addition to the SV example, might I point out that I was blocked and admonished for reversing a mistaken block made by an arbcom member as part of AE. The block was clearly wrong, and for saving another arbitrator the bother of having to reverse it a couple of hours later (which they admitted they would have done), my name was dragged through the mud. Given that the defiance exercised here goes well beyond such instances, and in fact extends to deceiving the community...Moreschi (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
further commentary
Thatcher hits the nail on the head. It is worth also pointing out that the user simply hadn't acknowledged what he did wrong in the first place, as is evidenced by a rather dubious unblock (condemned by the arbitrators below), and a bizarre and slightly terrifying email conversation with me yesterday, in which he alternately threatened to have me blocked for questioning his mental stability (anybody read this guy's WR posts?), and screamed IDCABAL at me when I questioned his rationality, accusing me of some bizarre alliance with KC and god knows who else, something I have never been a party to, nor has anyone even alleged before! Not once! I run the Opera and Fringe Cabals, damnit, not the ID one! So, in essence, GC and Lara got this guy sysopped when he was full of lunatic wikipolitical views and had a totally unreformed battleground mentality. If it hadn't all come out when it did, who knows what damage he would have done? Moreschi (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Karanacs

By actively aiding a desysopped, banned user in regaining administrative tools under false pretences, these administrators have essentially decided that the opinions of Arbcom are meaningless. SlimVirgin was temporarily desysopped for reversing a short-term block made as part of arbitration enforcement. In my opinion, this case is much worse as actions were taken to intentionally deceive the rest of the community. Policies need to be enforced consistently or they are worthless. Cases like these intimidate regular editors - if editor X can get away with that type of bad behavior, then maybe I shouldn't push them to comply with this content policy, because why should they be expected to abide by it? I have zero confidence in the judgement of any administrator who supported this RfA knowing Law's history. If the committee chooses not to definitively rule on this matter, I request that you send those administrators back to RfA to see if they have community support for keeping their tools. Karanacs (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to FayssalF

I welcome the addition of stronger guidance for administrators on the expected level of "professional" or ethical behavior, because I think there is ambiguity in some circumstances. This is not one of those ambiguous situations. This case is more than friendship vs. professionalism. It's friendship vs active assistance in evading Arbcom sanctions. Administrators are supposed to have sound judgement - we shouldn't have to explicitly spell out don't provide active assistance for people evading community-issued sanctions. It's not that difficult a concept. Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ottava Rima

I find it almost embarrassing that people are arguing that a user should jeopardize her relationship with another person simply because they did not reveal their identity at RfA. As I have not seen any policy that regulates what people think or feel, or who they are involved with, the above statements are almost intolerable. Is it rather interesting that Jehochman starts an Rfar claiming that ArbCom is the only one that can handle admin misconduct yet tried to claim that ArbCom was inappropriate about his own admin misconduct? Is it also a coincidence that the people claiming abuse and going after these three so hard happen to be the ones brought up in that ArbCom as acting improperly (Jehochman, Moreschi, Gwen Gale - see the ANI too). I would hope that if ArbCom desysops anyone, it should be the trouble makers above. The abuse is far greater than anything the undertow has done, and yet we are all 100% quite aware of their abuse. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This, this and other diffs are troubling. Jehochman has made it obvious that he does not want to follow the standard rules and decorum (such as posting in other people's sections here). He is also being quite abusive on standard questions on his talk page and others. It would seem that Jehochman is acting in a completely irrational and unbalanced manner. I would recommend that ArbCom open up the case in order to analyze how Jehochman has not only caused disruption at ANI, but on multiple talk pages in relationship to this. Blocks are to prevent disruption, and I would further recommend a 24 hour block on Jehochman because his actions suggest a user that is acting out of control. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen tearing out her hair

GlassCobra states here that he "felt sufficiently comfortable to place [his] trust in [The undertow] once again" by nominating him for adminship, and to "purposefully leave out any mention of The_undertow" in that nomination. His post is stunningly self-righteous and haughty, expressing not the slightest regret or doubt over his own actions. No, really, there appears no glimmer of a notion that the community needed the information to be able to decide whether or not to place their trust in The undertow once again. Au contraire. GlassCobra magisterially expresses "extreme displeasure with the actions and behavior of the other editors involved in leaking [sic] the information" and quite fails to see "why this particular instance seems to be generating such a dramastorm". Feeding into my own perception of the unofficial but strict "drama" rule so richly illustrated above ("if you have no actual argument, just say 'drama', that'll shut them up."), GC also feeds, more damagingly, into the perception of "ordinary" users that admins have each other's back — an expression unembarrassedly used by Jennavecia — this thing actually makes me blush. User:Little Stupid can have my tools. I strongly suggest that the arbcom follow Jennavecia's request here: "I'll always have his back no matter what, because we're friends regardless of what's going on with Wikipedia. I would never put a website before a friendship. And I would never not get his back because I'm an admin. If you don't trust me with my tools, recall me, but I won't be admonished for supporting my best friend." I've no wish to see Jennavecia admonished or otherwise humiliated, nor GlassCobra. There's too much humiliating going on at RFAR, and too much clumsy admonishment. Just do the practical thing: desysop them. They are not to be trusted with the tools. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

P.S. on Jehochman's request to the clerks

Just ignore Ottava Rima and Majorly, Jehochman. The more battleground stuff they post, the more they embarrass themselves. It doesn't touch you. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Response to FT2

Why call me "Admin X", FT2? Can't you spell "Bishonen"? You know — the admin who blocked you in January? The admin you like so much ? The following diffs demonstrate your pursuit of me and quest for vengeance; please realize that those are not relevant here. [23] [24] [25] Bishonen | talk 13:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment by bemused onlooker Spartaz

I'm sorry but the conduct of those admins who knowingly condoned this action is not acceptable and does not become their office. If the committee is to remain consistent in its approach to admin conduct and ethics then the colluding admins must lose their bits. Please do your duty. Also Undertow refers to a deal in their comment at talk Arbitration Announcements. I would be very grateful if the committee could release the details of this dear. Spartaz Humbug! 20:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Dayewalker

No dog in this fight whatsoever, but to me, this issue has nothing to do with Law's conduct as an admin. He seems to have been a decent one, unblock of Child of Midnight notwithstanding. The larger issue deals with Wikipedia policies, and first and foremost the trust of the community. This seems to have been done purposefully without regard to the rules in place. I would request ArbCom take this case because if this issue isn't clarified, it pretty much serves to undermine the system of rules in place here at Wikipedia, which pretty much turns us into just another forum. Right or wrong, the issue should be addressed. Dayewalker (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved and highly amused Giano

As one who sits and listens to endless and usually very dull, tiresome and schoolmarmish debate about incivility, setting an example, rules are rules etc etc etc..need I go on? (Those of you who churn this repetitive and very lower-middle-class garbage out, know who you are) I find it quite extraordinary that it has been necessary to even attempt to bring this, a very serious matter, to the arbcom to adjudicate. Double standards? You bet it is. It's pathetic and all very odd, but in certain quarters it's OK to lie and cheat, do what you like, so long as one is in the Admin club. Sooner or later a choice has to be made to either clean things up, starting at the top (ideal) or the bottom (easy option and doomed to fail). Why are these people still here and Admins? Someone explain...please? - I'm fascinated to hear who, that will be the best laugh, comes up with even one semi-convincing reason. Giano (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation by Sandstein

I concur with this request for desysopping (or referral to RFA) as well as with the statements of KillerChihuahua, Cube lurker, JoshuaZ, Moreschi, Karanacs, Dayewalker and Bishonen (some of who I've in the past strongly disagreed with), and recommend that the Committee act on it. While no abuse of administrator tools occurred, the conduct of Jennavecia and GlassCobra was deeply unethical, for reasons that ought to require no explanation. It is therefore incompatible with a position of trust in any association of decent people, in particular because the two appear to find no flaw in their own conduct.  Sandstein  19:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Tznkai
My proposal to ban "the Undertow" for longterm block evasion, abuse of trust etc. was made in good faith in what I believe to be the best interest of the project, and was supported by many (or is; it's been unarchived). I'm not one to dance on graves. I can't even dance.  Sandstein  19:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thatcher

There are varying degrees of culpability here. An admin proposed Law for RFA, knowing he was a ban-evading sockpuppet. Other admins supported his RFA knowing he was a ban-evading sockpuppet. There is a third group of admins that either knew but were passive about the RFA, or found out later, but in either case took no affirmative action to have the account desysopped and blocked.

There is a dispute within the community about the level of culpability each admin has and what is the appropriate response. There is the "black hat" view (any admin who knew and did not act should be sanctioned), the "white hat" view (no harm was committed by those admins who supported Law knowing who he was) and several shades of grey.

This is not a case of admin misuse of tools, where nearly everyone agrees that admins who abuse their tools should be removed, and the dispute is whether the facts of the case show they abused their tools. The facts are not in dispute here, the disagreement is over whether the facts constitute an offense. I personally think that GlassCobra should be desyopped for knowingly nominating an admin candidate who was under two sanctions (a ban and an RFA restriction) without disclosing this fact. I would like to see some sort of rebuke for Lara and Jayron and any other admins who knowingly voted for Law, but I'm not sure exactly what. But there seems not to be a good consensus on what to do.

I think it would be best to have a community RFC on the subject of admin responsibility. It is not fair to demand that Arbcom desysop or exonerate these admins when there is no prior precedent and no community agreement on what responsibility, if any, each admin had to act on their information. Thatcher 20:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I agree with Bishonen and Giano. While I do not condemn the decision to allow The_undertow to edit sub rosa as Law, he never should have been advanced for RFA. This was poor judgement in the extreme, both because of the actions which resulted in The_undertow requesting desysopping, and because of the Arbcom restriction. It's time we moved beyond requiring admins to do something grossly inappropriate with their toolbox before considering desyopping. We lack a method for community recall or reconfirmation of admins when their judgement comes into question. Therefore, Arbcom must act. Thatcher 19:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Followup

Having read and digested subsequent comments, I have a short followup. The problem is that there is no method of periodically reviewing admins to see whether they still have good judgement and the trust of the community, and there are no real incremental sanctions between "do nothing" and deadmin. It might be nice if we could issue Lara one demerit and GlassCobra 2 demerits, with 3 demerits in any 12 month period being grounds for deadminning, for example. But we can't. The community can express its displeasure at admins who betray their trust or exercise poor judgement, but is generally powerless to take action.

Here we have two admins who made serious errors in judgement, one nominating and one actively promoting, the RFA of a banned user. Allowing banned users to come back with a new account is tacitly supported by most people, but supporting that person for RFA without disclosing the user's past—which included some highly questionable actions, a voluntary desysop under unfavorable circumstances and a 9 month ban—was a betrayal of trust and error in judgement, compounded by a refusal to acknowledge the mistake and indeed, a promise to do it again.

The community has generally expressed its displeasure. Is that enough? Would a formal admonishment make these admins think twice before advancing another friend to adminship under false pretenses? Temporary desysop with immediate eligibility for RFA, perhaps, is the only effective way to give the whole community a voice in the matter, although that course has problems of its own. As I noted, there really aren't any effective intermediate remedies. Personally, I think that if you don't at least temporarily desysop these two, you will be sending a signal you don't want to send.

What about other admins who knew, but who were passive, allowing the RFA to happen without actively promoting or opposing it? That is a harder issue to tackle. I'd like to see a few apologies, and if it were possible I'd give them all half a demerit. Some kind of firm stand needs to be taken against the idea that "insiders" get special treatment, no matter whether group that one is "in" are just a few friends, or a mailing list, or even the higher-ranking functionaries. I don't have any good ideas on the form this stand should take, though. Thatcher 01:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by MZMcBride

Please reject this case. No good can possibly come of it. Both listed parties (Lara and Glass) are open to recall. It's high time that the community stop relying on the Arbitration Committee to resolve every issue that arises on this project. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Shankbone

I tend to agree with MZMcBride above. There are real issues and concerns that need to be addressed, but I think ArbCom is here for intractable disputes, not these sorts of issues that can be well-handled by the community. ArbCom is not the police. There needs to be a de-admin process set up; but since both Lara and GlassCobra are open to recall, I suggest that we use that route, which is as close to a de-admin process we have. In the meantime, it's high time we consider a formal de-admin process that is not voluntary. In this situation, ArbCom is overkill, in my opinion, although I recognize that there are serious concerns. I wish we would start solving problems ourselves instead of asking Papa ArbCom to sort out every issue. -->David Shankbone 19:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always felt that voluntary recall procedures are rather self-serving and silly. Lara's, for instance, requires two abuses of admin tools; in this instance, however, there were none. I agree with you, David, that a community process for recall would be better than an Arbcom process, but unfortunately, we don't have such a process. So it seems like a reasonable thing to discuss here, until such time as there is a standard community process for recall. -Pete (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize now that neither of these users would be recalled based upon the criteria they set out (see User:Jennavecia/Recall and User:GlassCobra/Recall). I stand by my initial desire for ArbCom not to review this issue because it feeds a bad cycle of people going to ArbCom to settle everything (which they don't have the time to do). It's hard to see the wisdom of one committee that decides everything from whether to ban the Church of Scientology to whether an admin was protecting her friend too much. If people feel strongly about these two admins, use that energy to start up a formal process, instead of continue with an improper venue (this one). I don't think anyone foresaw ArbCom to be used in situations like this. Adminship is a privilege, and it makes no sense why we don't have a better process for the community to decide someone no longer deserves it. We are collectively too smart to not fix problems like this, and this situation points out the need to do so. Reject the case; set up a formal process; make Lara and Glass the first candidates. -->David Shankbone 20:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That strikes me as a massive improvement on the recommendation to use the voluntarily and arbitrary recall processes outlined by Lara and Glass. I don't really know if Arbcom or trying out a new process would be best; but what you say is definitely worthy of consideration. -Pete (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It shows a flaw in the system: we have Community, then Supreme Court. We need Courts of Appeals, and only the most vexing issues should be at this level. Not this kind of stuff. It highlights a problem: we have no place for this kind of stuff. Same for ban appeals. Community-based desysopping proposals have been floated before (I can't readily recall where); perhaps they are ready for another look. -->David Shankbone 00:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David, I'm convinced by what you say here, and by our more extensive offline discussion. Declining this case would be the best long-term outcome for ArbCom, and for the community. It's long past due that we established a process for community admin recall, and I agree with you that the community's will to follow through and do something like that will only happen in the context of a specific incident like this. Waiting until everything is calm is not a viable option; ArbCom would do well to make a strong statement, that the community needs to establish procedures for dealing with its own issues. -Pete (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Nathan re: "recall"

MZMcBride notes above that Lara and GlassCobra are open to recall. Worth pointing out that both limit the terms of recall to situations where administrator privileges (specifically, administrator rights) were used, specifically excluding events that don't involve the use of these privileges. So, given the circumstances here, neither have a recall process that could address the concerns outlined above. Nathan T 19:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FT2's comment sent me searching to see if I knew what he was referring to; the RfC in question went by rather quickly, and it can be found here. Nathan T 00:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tznkai

It is an axiom of administrative involvement and arbitration that the behavior of all parties must be examined, and when we do that, we find many actions that are wanting. The Wikipedia community's essential purpose is to create an encyclopedia, and to that end, we encourage, tolerate, discourage, and constrain certain behaviors. Sysops are those entrusted to use their best judgment to solve certain problems, and are expected not cause them.

In the events immediately proceeding this request, at 05:02 UTC Risker posted the motion announcing the events concerning the undertow. Two and half hours later, at 07:29 Sandstein, the same administrator who had conflicted with Law and called for his desysopping in an arbitration request, started a community ban discussion on ANI. We can assume a lack of malicious intent, but it looks like dancing on someone's grave and is in incredibly poor judgment. Five and a half hours later at 13:04 Jehochman singled out Jennavecia and the discussion quickly degenerated. (Of note, as we all well know, even RfC/U is more effective and less drama producing than adding to a community ban discussion on ANI) At 14:16, Daniel declared “epic win”, presumably over Law's desysop. (Daniel and Law's earlier verbal alteraction was part of the chain of events for those not informed) Again, gloating is not conduct that should be tolerated. GlassCobra and Jennavecia have been called to task above, and it does not need repeating except to highlight what all of these acts have in common: they are examples of administrators exercising allegedly poor judgment. Some acts more obviously show bad judgment then others.

This should not be about some general principle about an affirmative obligation to act, philosophical questions on sins of omission, or even about community will or trust. This has everything to do with trusting an administrator's judgment. If a sysop can be trusted to maintain good judgment often enough, they should keep their tools. If a sysop has displayed significant acts of poor judgment, it calls into question whether or not they can be trusted with their tools.

Therefor, the Arbitration committee should examine the judgment of all the actors, especially administrators in this unfortunate chain of events, and test whether they have adequate judgment. It could, alternatively, decline the request because of the absence of significant efforts in dispute resolution. --Tznkai (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Sandstein

I reiterate: "We can assume a lack of malicious intent, but it looks like dancing on someone's grave and is in incredibly poor judgment." (Emphasis added) Having the self awareness and self restraint to avoid moving for a ban of an editor you were just in conflict with (especially in cases like this) has everything to do with essential administrator's judgment.--Tznkai (talk)

Concerning the motions The motions concerning mandatory reporting are too broad. I've been told information in confidence and come across supposed information that I have no right to know, that will never pass my lips at RfA or anything short of a genuine court of law. I at the very least, reserve my right to total and complete silence. I broadly and emphatically support judgment as the key issue and appropriate frame for discussion.--Tznkai (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Verbal

All admins and above who were complicit with this deception should have the tools removed with the possibility of reapplying in the usual way. I find this who affair rather tacky, and the self righteous tone taken by some in "defense" of their wilful disregard for wikipedia policies sickening. Cas has done the honourable and good thing, and shown himself to be better than some. It seems others don't share his decency and dignity, and ArbCom might redeem itself somewhat by dealing with those that feel our rules don't apply to them and their friends. A sad day for the project an admin core. We've lost a good Arb, we've yet to loose the bad admins. Verbal chat 20:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd also like to remind people here that Law/the_undertow had recently egregiously abused (per arbocm and common sense) their improperly gained admin tools to help a friend - admin tools that were improperly gained due to the knowing and calculated improper actions of involved admins (his friends). Verbal chat 21:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding that I have no personal involvement with any of those involved in this case, and reject the silly accusations made by a (disgraced) former arb and others against those thinking action should be taken. To answer another point, all admins who knew should be warned - with approporiate severity depending on their involvement (ie GC and Jevennica should loose the tools). This is a good chance to clean up the admin core, before it rots through completely. Verbal chat 08:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Observation by Pete Forsyth

As quoted/diffed above, Lara stated that she felt it important to "support" her "best friend." I think this provides an important insight into what happened here.

The notion of "supporting" a friend is one thing, and casting a support !vote is quite another. If Lara confused one with the other, as it appears, that is a significant error in judgment.

I'm not recommending any specific action based on that error in judgment, but I think this factor should probably be considered carefully by anyone involved in this issue, including Lara. There are many ways to support a friend, that are compatible with one's duties as an administrator; to date, it appears (to me, from what I've seen) that Lara has not acknowledged that there may have been other, better options available that would have honored her friendship. -Pete (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation by Pete Forsyth

In lieu of previous comments, I am now supporting Jehochman's proposal of a structured RFC. Seems the best option given the circumstances. -Pete (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

addendum: I am concerned about the apparent desire of a couple of ArbCom members to simply make a determination (on the "motions" page). The underlying issue here is faith of the community, not the use of admin tools. If ArbCom makes its own determination, rather than a judgment of the determination made by the community, I think such a decision will lack legitimacy (regardless of whether the decision is to remove admin tools or not).

We have strong precedent for a trusted body to determine the will of the community: in RFA discussions, a bureaucrat determines the consensus determined by the community; and in featured article discussions, the FA editor or his/her deputies makes a similar determination. This is the model that should be followed here (though it may be that a bureaucrat is a better authority to judge consensus than ArbCom, since they're the ones who determine consensus for approving an RFA).

ArbCom's judgment of whether an administrator's judgment is sufficient to continue their duties is not relevant; admins serve at the pleasure of the entire editing community.

One other thing that seems worth mentioning: even if the 3 admins in question have their tools removed, there's nothing preventing them from running in a new RFA in the future to get them back. The point is, it's always been the community's trust that grants the tools, and any process for recalling them that is not supported by a broad consensus of the community lacks legitimacy. -Pete (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

As noted in David Shankbone's section above, I believe the best course of action for ArbCom (in its own interest, and in the interest of the Wikipedia community at large) is to decline this case, with a stated preference that the community avail itself of the opportunity to establish a straightforward and standard procedure for re-evaluating the granting of administrative tools. Many kinds of recurring concerns will be easier to deal with if we have such a process, and it will lighten the load on ArbCom as well, enabling it to keep its focus on issues where it's really needed. There's no time like the present. -Pete (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Forsyth's edits to Sir Fozzie's motion

Sir Fozzie has drafted some text above. Here are some edits I'd proposed; my intent is to make this a bit more general (covering more situations than those involving personal friendship) and also to be more specific about how a consequence will be determined. -Pete (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the key tests that determine who gets granted is entrusted with administrative tools at WP:RFA is the ability to use good judgment when it comes to Wikipedia disputes. An administrator must be trusted by the community to use their best judgment to enforce Wikipedia's rules and regulations work in support of Wikimedia's mission in an impartial way, without letting personal feelings towards participants any conflict of interest color their judgment.
When situations arise in which the community's perception of an administrator is substantially changed, that administrator must either revoke their status as an administrator, or enter into a recall process. (Such situations may result either from new factual information about an administrator's behavior, or expressions of strong opinions by the administrator that affect the way they are perceived. Such situations need not involve the use of administrator tools.)
[insert some detail about what the threshold is for requiring a recall process]
If an administrator has information that another user is violating Wikipedia's norms and/or policies, and is unable to act fairly and justly, should forward their information to a trusted neutral administrator, or if that is not possible, to the Arbitration Committee.
If an administrator is to found to be complicit in allowing or assisting other users in breaking Wikipedia's rules and policies, it may be considered bad judgment in the use of their administrative tools and in repeated or egregious cases, may lead to their administrative privileges being revoked.

Statement by Wikidemon

Should GlassCobra be de-sysopped for nominating and supporting Law, an account he knew to be a sockpuppet, to adminship? More broadly, is it allowable for administrators to harbor sockpuppetry by others?

Arbcom ought to weigh in because the question won't go away on its own or in other forums. It should lay down the law that: (1) deliberate deception in RfA process is not allowed; (2) knowingly supporting sockpuppetry is not allowed; and (3) complicity in any policy violation is, itself, a policy violation. The "drama" here (which can only be blamed on those perpetrating subterfuge, not those objecting to it) is preventing any resolution on community pages.

We should all agree that using alternate account names to avoid detection of a block or ban is wrong, and sockpuppet administrators are extra wrong. The test of socks is not whether they make good edits, it's whether they are alternate accounts created for an improper purpose. We obviously don't have a rule vindicating fake accounts as long as their edits gain support, or fake admins if they are popular. Fake doctors don't earn their medical license by performing a successful surgery, and escaped convicts don't earn their pardon by joining the boy scouts. The harm is the faking, not necessarily the specific acts (although just as unlicensed doctors are more likely to kill the patient, widespread sockpuppetry leads to widespread trouble on the encyclopedia).

The missing link is whether facilitating a sockpuppet is itself a breach of policy. More broadly, is complicity in a policy violation (by aiding, enabling, conspiring, encouraging, ignoring when one has a duty to police, etc.) itself a policy violation? I think yes. It's deliberate, it creates a policy violation, and the harm is the same.

On the secifics it is wrong to say that Law was a good administrator. What triggered this is that Law reversed a block made to enforce an ArbCom general sanction, without consulting and eventually against the pleas of the blocking editor, with an explanation that flaunted Arbcom. In so doing he mooted a request for enforcement (which I made). There is real harm from the cavalier disrespect for admin policy. It wasted days and days of editors' time by undoing a dispute resolution process that had already spilled onto more than one page and involved a dozen and a half editors. More fundamentally, coupled with knowing that my Arbcom request was undone by a sock promoted by a clique of mutually supportive admins, if nothing is done about this my faith in and respect for, and desire to abide by, Arbcom is greatly shaken. Why should I be the diligent one here with my article edits and dispute resolution, when a pack of cowboys runs all over my efforts and nobody cares?

ArbCom, when asked, unanimously agreed that the unblock was wrong and exhibited poor judgment. That's not good work. That's an administrator going rogue, which is in part what got The undertow de-sysopped and then blocked in the first place. GlassCobra should have foreseen this would happen, so he's responsible that it did. I don't have any opinion for what should happen to GlassCobra, but the current defiant attitude by, and support from other admins, does not bode well. Wikipedia already has a process for de-sysopping for "repeated/consistent poor judgment" and for "gross breach of trust". GlassCobra's suport for Law could be seen as either, particularly if GlassCobra's adminship factored in the nomination process, i.e. if he "wore the badge" into the room. If GlassCobra was okay to do it, will they advance more sockpuppet admins if the occasion arises and will we tolerate it? That's an open issue and Arbcom needs to put its foot down and say no.

- Wikidemon (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Ultraexactzz makes a good point, below. We should not punish people for being honest, nor make examples out of two people for a widespread phenomenon. If the decision is that this is impermissible, better to go with a slap on the wrist if even that, and a caution to them and all others not to do it again. That's why I'm heavy on the question of policy, and not so much on individual behavior. Wikidemon (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant musing by NE2

It seems the common thread in the recent "fresh start" cases has been that one cannot use a fresh start to become an admin. Or maybe that you should use it as such, because then you'll only be deadminned rather than banned (except in the case of Mr. Leetage). --NE2 21:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: if there's one good thing that's come from this, it's that every time I think of Law I do a few Kegels. --NE2 21:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Ultraexactzz

By the logic expressed here, any admin who supported The_undertow at his Law RFA, knowing he was undertow, should be desysopped. Which means we are in the position of listing every admin who supported as a party and demanding that they, under penalty of sanction, come clean as to whether they knew that Law was a sockpuppet, and when they found out. We might go further, and list the opposing admins as well - if they opposed due to their knowledge and relationship with undertow, why didn't they blow the whistle on the whole charade?

I don't mean to diminish or belittle the concerns of my esteemed colleagues, above, but the argument here is that Jennavecia and Glasscobra should be sanctioned because they admitted their knowledge of the Law/undertow connection, and others should not because they have not admitted to knowing about it. Should everyone who suspected the relationship be listed as well? (Why didn't they blow the whistle?) This case is the very definition of slippery slope, and no good can come of it in its present form.

I concur that some discussion should be had on when admins (and arbitrators - I note that Casliber is not listed as a party) are required to report violations, or when they can use their discretion in interacting with the blocked or banned user. And dispute resolution may be in order - there has been no RFC, no comment apart from the drama at ANI. It's too soon, though - there has not been enough time for those things to occur.

In short, This is not ripe for arbitration, and the scope is not sufficiently narrow for a meaningful remedy. I urge the committee to decline this request. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're quite right. We should also legalize murder, and shoplifting, on the basis that sometimes people do it without admitting to it. We should never prosecute someone who confesses to murder, because there might be some other murderer out there who didn't confess! :) -Pete (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, and thank you for the fun-filled accusations (and for commenting in my section). My point is that this is a much bigger case than the initiating party is asking for, and it should either be expanded to encompass 50+ admins, some or all of whom may or may not have done anything wrong, or (more reasonably) it should be declined in favor of something more narrowly tailored. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. That makes sense, though I'm not sure I see the connection to the first two paragraphs of your initial statement. Apologies if my tone seemed disparaging, that wasn't my intent. But I know that tone don't always translate well in a text-based discussion, and it was maybe not the best choice on my part. -Pete (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I responded on your talk. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum in re: FT2's Comments

If FT2's allegations are accurate, and I have no reason to doubt them... Wow. That sounds much like an arbitration case all its own. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 00:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking this, it's too much the drama. Let it stand that I read FT2's "Obervations..." comment in a way that I'm sure FT2 didn't intend. In light of his comments, though, it might not be a bad idea for the filing party to clarify his position, esp. as it relates to his statements in the referenced RFC. Apologies for any offense. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kevin

In my opinion the act of getting a formerly banned editor to abandon the behavior that caused the ban back to being a productive editor, so much so that he passed RFA, is the greatest achievement here, and one that we should aspire to. The fact that is was done outside the narrow boundaries of a previous ARBCOM decision is a lapse of judgement, nothing more. I do not believe that either admins actions at the RfA actually changed the result, so I look on them more as "moral support for a friend" rather than trying to sneak something through. This is a case for adminishment, nothing more. Kevin (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Pedro

I've thought hard before commenting here. There is exceptional bad blood between myself and Lara / Jennavecia that has had more than one unfortunate overspill. Equally I have only ever had very positive interaction with GlassCobra.
As an "interesting" note, over at our favourite review site is this where less than two weeks ago the account on Wikipedia Review that idenitifies as being Jennavecia on Wikipedia seems to indicate a mere passing knowledge of Law (note the "or something") yet we now know this was disingenuous at best (an outright lie at worst) - she knew exactly what the editor known as Law's profession was.
I actively opposed Jennavecia's request for Oversight, and righlty so, as it is now proven she will look out for friends before abiding by fundamental Wikipedia policy.
I certainly feel the nature of this issue needs arbcom attention. Let me be clear on that. The levels this runs to is too deep for arbcom to avoid.

Having said that, there are many calls above regarding trust. Well trust comes in many forms. I trust my wife with my PIN number, my kids, my life - but I would not trust here to go and run a presentation to my clients.

Whilst my faith in GlassCobra has been shaken, and I had no faith in Jennavecia to begin with, I do not see how these actions are an natural precussor to desysop. I still trust both of these editors to use admin tools effectively - and there is no doubt both of them have used those permissions extensively, effectively, fairly and within the policies of this website. In paticular I note both editors extensive WP:BLP concerns and efforts in that respect - surely something to be deeply grateful for.
I believe arbcom needs to look at the ramifications of this case but removal of the tools for these editors is not, in my opinon, a benefit to Wikipedia - it's a hinderance. Pedro :  Chat  21:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Willbeback

I have no clue how you define "membership" but other than posting a couple of pictures and a few comments on talk I have had little to do with this Bath Robe Cabal. It was simply a bit of fun after a particular RFA and a photo that was uploaded to Wikipedia. I have never used the (apparently now defunct) website nor the facebook page. Considering you have already had to remove two names I suggest you do your research a bit harder next time. I'd appreciate you at least noting that you have no evidence that this humorous "cabal" was in anyway relevant to this case. I'd also note I had no clue Law was the_undertow and if I had found out I would have been the first little squealer at ANI given I despise the man. Pedro :  Chat  21:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved FeydHuxtable

Its only the most oppressive communities such as Stalin's Russia that demand total loyalty regardless of friendship. Would be different if Law hadn't been a mostly constructive user. Hope this case against two of our best admins is rejected. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to keep it real

In response to comparisons between admins and public office holders , its true that politicians and big company directors have to sign up to codes of conduct which demand honesty. However, even accepting adminship is a big deal to many, the connections a little OTT when one considers that senior execs often don't need to make these sorts of commitments. Even for major office holders, never as far as Im aware is there a clause saying they have to rat on their friends. The issue here is analogous to an MP failing to disclose that a friend covered up a minor COI and then going on to support in say a vote on who gets to chair a committee. Office holders are held accountable for their own honesty , not those of friends or family. Many jurisdictions explicitly forbid prosecutors against trying to compel partners to rat each other out.

There are some questionable views on friendship below, so I'll refer to the best available source for the mainstream POV on ethical matters. "There is no greater love than to lay down ones life for ones friends" (John 15:13). No ones going to be judged on whether they've crusaded for absolute disclosure, but whether theyve loved others as themselves. God cannot lie , but He doesn't merely sometimes fail to disclose, He sometimes purposely hides truth. (Isaiah 29:9-10). Paul the Apostle was "all things to all men." Christ told us to "be as wily as serpents." This isnt to deny truthfulness is very important, but describing whats at worst an aggravated failure to disclose as "abysmal" or "appalling" – adjectives suited for the vilest evil - really isn't something a sincere engagement with reality can support.

If you guys don't with to be bold and end this by accepting the apologies and offering warnings, Uncle G's suggestion could be of benefit. There should be no risk of consensus emerging to desysop, and further discussion might help enlighten hard liners with some real world perspective. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Modernist

Appallingly hypocritical, and drenched in double standard, we have the spectacle of Law, attacking Peter Damian, and Damian's demise; then - Pastor Theo, who really was - Ecoleetage, personal attacks, gaming the system, rules applying to you and to me, but not to a select group of admins who do what they want, (although most don't bother writing articles) but rather create drama, and then essentially explain - it's only a website.Take the case, Casliber has resigned perhaps he should weigh in as well. I am adding that Casliber was willing to accept the consequences of his actions, and no one can really fault him for anything that transpired, but others who are trusted admins by their irresponsibility, duplicity and silence are far more culpable and not surprisingly now far less willing to bear responsibility for their actions, or capable of understanding that their actions constitute a serious violation of the position of authority and trust that they were privileged to bear. There is either a serious lack of understanding surrounding this or plain deception; and both Lara and Glasscobra should be desysopped to preserve the integrity of this body...Modernist (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning professionalism

It seems that the only professional behavior in this affair has been exhibited by Casliber, who has taken responsibility for his actions, rightly or wrong. Law, GlassCobra and Lara however have not...Modernist (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning intentions

One of my father's favorite and often used expressions was The road to hell was paved with good intentions. On the other hand the famous art critic Clement Greenberg would often say that "in order to understand an artists work; you need to first understand what (her or his) intentions are." Although they are somewhat contradictory interpretations of intentions, the implication is that intention is not a justification for doing the wrong thing in either case...Modernist (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved dave souza

Friendship is a valuable part of Wikipedia, the problem arises when friendship is held to justify bad judgement and a breach of the trust of the community in enabling and abetting a sockpuppet to evade community scrutiny and obtain administration tools. Had they shown true friendship, the honest and decent course of action would be to advise their friend that they themselves would be obliged to act properly, at the least his identity should be made known to arbcom, and that they would have nothing to do with nominating or voting for their friend in a deceitful bid for admin tools. From justifications that have been made, a good case could have been made for an open request for reinstatement on the basis of reformed behaviour, but the community is entitled to review that case and not have it deliberately hidden.

Obviously by making the bid, the undertow placed his friends in a difficult position. Casliber evidently behaved decently in trying to persuade him to act properly, and has honourably accepted that by not acting to notify Arbcom of the deception he has undermined community trust. GlassCobra and Jennavecia evidently are unable to see that they have done anything wrong or that they have undermined community trust in their future actions, which from their words will always involve putting friendships before community trust and policies. I have great sympathy for the occasional lapse in behaviour, but these admins are proclaiming their right to continue to act against policies in the interest of their friends.

Regrettably, I must urge Arbcom to take on this case and give full consideration to the necessary action, both in terms of these individuals and in terms of setting standards of admin behaviour for the future. It should have been obvious that deceiving the community by acting covertly to make a known sockpuppet an admin was unacceptable behaviour, but evidently this message has not been grasped. . . dave souza, talk 22:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on responses

As Barberio has helpfully clarified at #'Arbcom legislating' and 'no policies have been broken', there have been clear breaches of policy. The #Statement by GlassCobra in Response to Jehochman and others is well put, and shows what I would consider a reasonable level of understanding of the wrongness of the actions breaching policy. The #Statement by Jennavecia is a well crafted non-apology apology, and while it is a considerable improvement on earlier defiant statements, all it concedes is summarised by "Would I do it again? After this shitstorm, surely not. All that said, I think all that's left is, am I apologetic? To a degree." Not reassuring. It is important that Arbcom impose suitable and sufficient sanctions to make it clear that such actions are not sanctioned in any way. There as been a wide range of degrees of misconduct, and Barberio us wise in suggesting Arbcom consider suspended sentences on probation for those administrators they do not feel should be directly punished. . dave souza, talk 22:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FT2

The action of concealment was grossly improper and I endorse hearing it at RFAR. I don't know if it was naive bad judgment by the parties ("he's changed") or something else, but there's no way concealing it at RFA could possibly have been the right thing to do; especially given the history of which they had knowledge.

That's the one place the community relies upon openness as it chooses its future sysops and it was distorted by concealment by the nominators. It's worthy of an RFAR. "Unusually poor judgement" at best. Desysoppable for gross breach of trust? Temporary desysop to mark the seriousness and drive home that it must never recur again? Strong admonishment? Let's leave that one to Arbcom. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update - if the case is heard, then it's important to remember that "a banned user comes back, behaves well, and doesn't have further issues" is traditionally grounds for letting the past be the past. I would respect that, if that was the intention and belief.
It is however poor judgment because in this case the user was seeking adminship, a role they had led into drama and dispute previously, so the community should have been given the knowledge of that, although a year old, and allowed to assess that in full possession of the facts. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Observation out of disgust by uninvolved FT2

I don't often speak with simple disgust at other users' actions. This time, having endorsed the hearing of this case, I do. Sorry for this, but unusually, it's a "cannot stay silent on it" issue, relating to those presenting this case. Some background:

2 months ago an admin and MedCom member, and a FA editor and featured portal director with adminship on 5 wikis, Arbcom on another project, and OTRS -- raised concerns that an admin KillerChihuahua and Jehochman both knew, had tacitly allowed another admin, their close wiki-friend, to covertly sock a discussion to their advantage, and had concealed their sure knowledge it was an admin's stacking sockpuppet. The party had not only failed to disclose it to the community when it mattered, but as an admin with direct involvement had allowed the matter to stand undisclosed and even to continue.
Sounds comparable? Behavior like this worthy of RFAR? Dead right. That is exactly why concerns were raised.

But at the related RFC and various talk page discussions in that case, two admins posted quickly and forcefully to effectively protect the sock-aider. Guess who? User:Jehochman and User:KillerChihuahua: - exactly the same pair of admins now bringing an RFAR titled "Administrators aiding a sock puppet".

In that case both Jehochman and KillerChihuahua indicated the case was groundless, improper, should not be asked, and scornfully dismissed the concerns unconsidered. (KC later admitted never even reading the evidence.) In this case about a near-identical issue (involved admin knowing about but concealing improper use of admin-related account misuse) both seek the exact opposite:

  • Jehochman: -- ...admins [who]... knowing full well that the account had been used [improperly]... motivation appears to have been close friendship with the operator... I think this was a gross abuse of trust... I call upon the Committee to remove sysop access... The facts are clear cut... Do we tolerate subversion of our policies by popular insiders?...
  • KillerChihuahua: -- An admin who[se]... friends come before policy... she should not have Wikipedia's trust... An admin who knowingly aids and abets... a sock account... is also grossly guilty of violating the community's trust. [Such a user should not] have the admin tools, having proven they are untrustworthy and place personal friendship over the community, the project, and policy.

Jehochman, KillerChihuaua - this specific case may well be valid, but I do not have any confidence in either of your motives in bringing it. You're either for admin concealment of socking being seen as important, or against it. Not changing depending on who the party may be.

Specifically, your conduct (together) is too diametrically changed, your joint posting too convenient, your complete dismissal (together) of admin-endorsed socking for gain in one case and complete overwhelming pushing (together) for the most severe penalties for it in another, raises the most grave concerns about cliques, gaming, and integrity.

I have not once posted that strongly of a fellow admin, in my five years as a Wikimedian.

If you have a good explanation for the discrepancy and for your joint "first in the trough" in both cases, to protect admin X from the consequences of improper concealment of admin socking in one instance, and to drag admins Y+Z to RFAR in another case, when both revolve around substantively similar actions and ethical issues, I would be open to hearing it.

Otherwise I note the above, and the jointly early arriving together (which Jehochman has stated is noteworthy in other cases), as part of this case and for the community to consider.

FT2 (Talk | email) 23:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Chillum

Hiding the fact that an admin is both sock puppeting and violating an arbcom sanction is a gross violation of trust and I hope that this case is taken seriously. Putting friendship before the well being of a project is exactly what we do not need or want in an admin. A clear statement needs to be made that this is not acceptable behavior for a sysop here. Chillum 23:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Protonk

More later, the basic idea being that arbcom should reject this case, though not for some of the reasons listed above.

Ok. Permit me to show my lower class roots and tell a sea story. On the U.S.S. Anyfish a team of engineering crewmembers were on watch while the submarine was at sea. They were not paying attention to a minor reactor plant parameter and they accidentally triggered a protective function, forcing the control rods into the core. Normally, this would be a serious but not dramatic problem. The watch team would be relieved, disqualified and an investigation would be undertaken. If the investigation revealed that the protective function was tripped as a result of an avoidable but benign accident, the crewmembers on watch would receive the naval version of a trouting and be requalified. But on this occasion, the protective action was so slight that all the crew members had to do in order to correct it was withdraw rods again and they could pretend it never happened. A watchteam of 5 people, including enlisted personnel with years of experience and a junior officer, chose to falsify records and not report the protective action.

Later, the oncoming watch team noticed a discrepancy and discovered the protective action and subsequent cover-up. The watch team responsible for covering up the action was permanently barred from standing watch on nuclear submarines (the naval equivalent of an indefinite ban. When an outside monitor reviewed the incident (because while the protective action was no big deal, the cover up was important), they found out why this experienced team of people risked their careers in order to cover up this small problem. The command they were operating under (the submarine) had adopted a punitive regime with regard to small infractions. So instead of facing a serious but temporary disciplinary action over triggering the protective action, they might have faced more severe punishment, offering them the apparent rationale to hide the evidence in order to avoid that punishment. In doing so they knowingly compounded a trivial problem (a fast insertion) into a career ending mistake (coverup of a protective action). Were those watchteam members still responsible for their actions? Yes. But part of the blame lays with the command and (importantly) part of the way forward in avoiding a repeat of this action lies in offering a more sensible punishment scheme.

Like those sailors on that 637, here we have 4 (maybe more) admins who saw an editor they knew and liked banned (rightly or wrongly, I don't know) and then were faced with a decision to reveal to the community or the committee the identity (per se) of their friend following his return. They probably felt that Arbcom was more likely to escalate the ban following an attempt to circumvent it and they felt that the community would be unsympathetic. I can't really understand why they all might have felt that the right answer was to nominate and support him for adminship, but once you move down that road of subterfuge and rationalization it is hard to go back. I don't thin it helps to walk back and determine blame but we do have a chance right here to show folks in the future that we will be understanding when they reveal past misdeeds.

I think Arbcom should reject this case, at the most authoring a motion to warn GC, given that his was the most grave sin of commission. The damage that has been done is in the past. Don't establish a reputation as vindictive or severe as you will grow to regret it. Protonk (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor response to Feyd Huxtable's comment

I will also point out that Feyd Huxtable's comment is inaccurate and breathtaking in its hyperbole and revealed ignorance. Plenty of organizations and governing bodies around the world have strict rules about breaking public trust due to a private relationship, from corporate boards to city councils to legislative bodies. Protonk (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rodhullandemu

I see no requirement in the RFA procedure to disclose prior knowledge of the candidate, although I also note that there are moves to include this; maybe that is no bad thing, not necessarily because of this case, but because of prior, much more abusive cases. My bottom line is this, and only this: "Does this editor's ability to edit/admin constitute an overwhelmingly net benefit to the purpose of building an encyclopedia?". We continually close our eyes (but sigh) to editors abusing basic policies such as WP:CIV and WP:NPA because they provide good content. Eventually, they may go too far and lose the community's patience, but meanwhile, they are drama-wasps at the picnic. I don't see User:The_undertow being in that tranche. He's here for the best interests of the encyclopedia (remember that?), as far as I can see, and should not be pilloried for that. I don't see that he was required to disclose his prior account, and I suggest that ArbCom has better things to do than a microscopic dissection of something that, in the final analysis, has not demonstrably caused any harm to the purpose of building an encyclopedia. Rodhullandemu 00:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Kww

This is one of those cases that appears very simple to me, and I fail to understand why people struggle with it. GlassCobra and Jennavecia were aware of block evasion, and did nothing to stop it. The RFA is a red herring: the simple fact that neither of them blocked Law upon becoming aware of the block evasion would be sufficient to warrant desysopping. The whole concept of a "fresh start" is that no one ever finds out. The reason it's important for no one to ever find out is that a whole series of obligations and events are triggered once anyone does. In this case, GlassCobra and Jennavecia were obligated to block Law once the sock puppetry and block evasion were known.—Kww(talk) 01:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on GlassCobra's statement

I was surprised to see GlassCobra state "While I am unsure of the exact amount of time that passed between the blocking of the Undertow account and the creation of the Law account, I am relatively sure that by the time Law was granted the tools, the block on the Undertow account had expired.". This strains credibility, as per this and [26], it was scarcely three months into a nine month block. It took me all of 30 seconds to look that up, and I would expect that GlassCobra is equally skilled with examining logs.—Kww(talk) 00:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC) This misses the point entirely: it doesn't matter when he was granted the tools, what matter is that block evasion occured, per this and [27].—Kww(talk) 00:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Franamax

On one level, no arbitration is required here. Jennavecia and GlassCobra have irreparably damaged themselves in their attempt to "help" a "friend". They will never be able to escape this, anything they do or say in future will face the innocent question "Oh excuse me, is what you are saying/doing because it's right for Wikipedia, or is it because the subject is your friendz4ever or you've privately arrived at the conclusion that even though it's wrong 'tis all good anyway?". That damage is done, and the damage has also claimed a pretty good arbitrator to boot. By all indications TU is kicking himself, and he should have had better friends who would pull him up by the short hairs the day before he went to RFA.

On another level, the absolute determination of the named admins in this case that they did nothing wrong, that the end justifies the means, and that it is all someone else's fault - combined with the fact that there is really no practical way to deal with this outside of this forum - pretty much dictates that ArbCom should hear this case. The fundamental trust of the community is at stake here. People would really like to believe that admins hew to values in preference to relationships. Franamax (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

No formal dispute resolution has preceded this request for arbitration. There has been no wheel war and no urgent problem exists regarding use of administrative tools. Yesterday, while none of FT2 points were in mind, I offered to certify an RfC on either Jehochman or Jennavecia primarily because both of their conduct was indecorous. It's important to set the right example, particularly during administrative discussion about someone such as Law who has tried to get it right and made significant missteps. Recommend rejection: people deserve a chance to learn what the community's opinion is and to adapt as appropriate. Durova320 01:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EdChem is right. With respectful sympathy toward the sentiment of FayssalF's suggestion, it treads too close to the line. ArbCom is not a moral compass for the community at large; it exists to resolve disputes. Either there is an arbitratable dispute here or there is not (or perhaps not yet)--which would place specific individuals under scrutiny as compared to site policies and norms. It is not the function of the Committee as a body to advise the community what its norms ought to be, although any or all of the individual arbitrators are welcome at policy and policy talk pages. Durova320 18:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extending thanks to Cool Hand Luke for a clear and cogent explanation of relevant background. Durova320 03:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Give up on the summary motion drafts. The long term effect of that is to encourage high drama political RFARs--at the expense of actual dispute resolution. Durova321 14:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disappointed but not surprised that the Committee overlooks both the unseemly manner in which this RFAR was initiated (and a second unactionable RFAR by the same person) and expresses no regret over the 2008 Committee's having let the appeal slip through the cracks (hence precipitating inappropriate action by persons who supposed legitimate appeals were pointless). One-sided summary motions incentivize future drama and political filings. Please reconsider. Durova321 19:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninv Ncmvocalist

I'm glad FayssalF sees through this, and ironically, my comment would be similar to his main one (perhaps longer, and with less emphasis on professionalism). But if we start focussing on professionalism with respect to this request, we cannot ignore some of the concerns raised by FT2, Jennavecia, and others; that some users manage to repeatedly cause disunity even with professionalism, due to their own glaring loyalty to certain users. It's impossible to resolve these issues without drastic steps. Perhaps a motion that reminds all parties of what this project is (supposed to be), and urging them to genuinely settle or resolve their differences amongst themselves, in a manner that is voluntary, tactful and in good faith, is the best we can do here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jayron32

You can go ahead and add me to the "parties" section of this case if you choose. I knew that Law was the undertow. I supported him in his RFA knowing that. I am not ashamed or embarassed by that. --Jayron32 05:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Orderinchaos

Personally I think the matter is unactionable, and actioning it would produce loads of unnecessary drama. I think the wrong thing was done and certainly, some people come out of this looking less than squeaky clean and would probably have to acknowledge that if they were to go through RfA right now, they would probably fail it. There is a *big* gulf between not taking action against your friends, which is a conflict-of-interest issue anyway and one I've had to deal with with at least one user, and *actively assisting* in violations of Wikipedia policy. Friendship does not require that of anyone - the best course of action when in doubt is to abstain, and to advise from the sidelines. (I once had a friend who, while incredibly well-intentioned, was constantly incivil and prone to edit-warring and it put me in a very awkward spot.) But I can't see anything ArbCom can consider about the specific individuals concerned that would lead to any more than a few "Such-and-such is admonished..." remedies, and a lot of bad blood could come out before that inevitable is reached. I tend to agree with Fayssal's approach below regarding passing a motion or making a ruling on cornerstone principles or ideals such as to provide guidance to future editors who find themselves in this kind of situation. Orderinchaos 07:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Jclemens below, I do personally think it is a perfectly acceptable solution to an awful conflict of interest situation to abstain entirely. i.e. "I do not think what you are doing is right, I think you should not do it, here are the reasons why, but as a friend, I cannot stop you." Orderinchaos 08:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Badger Drink

Should friends come before Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anybody can edit? Absolutely. Should Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anybody can edit, then give carte blanche to what is, at its heart, unabashedly clique-like behavior? Absolutely not. I don't dispute for one minute that GlassCobra and Jennavecia believed they were being very noble in putting friendship before Wikipedia - and so they were. But that nobility comes at a price, and to wave aside said price does nothing but cheapen whatever nobility their actions had. To be blunt: You took a gambit, the gambit backfired. Man up and admit and accept that you are no longer trustworthy enough to perform administrative duties. Don't hem and haw and err and umm and hand-wring and hand-wave and blow smoke up our asses about how you really, actually, no kidding, honestly, we-mean-it had the project's best interests in mind - such transparently two-faced backpedaling is disrespectful to other editors, disrespectful to the project, and I daresay it even trivializes the no-doubt loyal nature of your friendship with Law ("we're your friends, tried and true, and have no problem risking our necks for you - well, er, until our necks are in danger, and if that's the case, then, uh, we were just supporting you because, uh, we thought it was good for the project, or something...").

I also submit that, in the spirit of WP:IAR, the statements and comments at this page are an indicator of the community's view, and referring this matter to an RfC so the same people who offered statements and comments here can go over there and transclude their statements from here to there, then endorse each other's comments, is sheer process-wonkery of the worst sort.

As a postscript, any "ends justify the means" rationalization of their behavior in supporting Law cannot ignore Law's horrible unblock of ChildOfMidnight, which reeks of the same bad relativism that characterized the whole White Pride fiasco which semi-indirectly led to the undertow's original block. Do such ends really justify the means of Jennavecia and GlassCobra? I think not. Badger Drink (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by utterly disenchanted DuncanHill

So some admins lie and cheat to promote their blocked or banned friends? So what? We all know this sort of thing goes on all the time - the best thing for ArbCom to do would be to acknowledge that admins are exempt from all the normal standards of decent behaviour, and let them get on with their silly games. Admins cannot be trusted, and no attempt to rectify that is ever likely to succeed. I would just like to add that any block of someone for calling an admin a lier or a cheat is going to sound very hollow from now on. DuncanHill (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll add this on friendship - a true friend does not help you to lie and to cheat, a true friend tries to guide and support you towards honesty and fair play. Too often on Wikipedia we see "friends" encouraging very damaging and ultimately self-destructive behaviour in their victims friends. It is time we stopped this "friendship means never telling someone that they are way out of line" nonsense in its tracks. DuncanHill (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question to all arbitrators

Did any other Arbitrators know of this, or would have known had they been more attentive to their emails? And are any arbs aware of any similar cases? DuncanHill (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the personal and the public

Many admins know of blocked or banned users editing through sock accounts and take no action out of personal loyalty. So long as this is a passive "failure to reveal", there is little disruption (personally I find it distasteful at best, but I do recognise that my standards of friendship and honesty may differ from those of many others). However, when that knowledge is concealed in a community discussion which could result in enhanced privilege for that friend, such concealment becomes an active deception of the community, and serves to undermine the process in question, the community's ability to trust the judgement of that admin, and trust in admins in general. This disrupts the project significantly. In short - if your friend is editing through a block or ban - don't nominate or support them at RfAd! DuncanHill (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SlimVirgin

Hogarth's "The Polling". It's time for Wikipedians to drag themselves into the 21st century.

Part of what it is to be human is that we starve without relationships and dread losing them. Every sophisticated human institution throughout history has had to erect strong defences against the injustice and in-group bias caused by that basic human need. Lara Love/Jennavecia made the problem explicit when she wrote that she'll always place her friends' interests above those of Wikipedia. We all do this to some extent.

Wikipedia has built almost no defence against it. This coming ArbCom election is the first time we'll have a secret ballot, for example. ArbCom decisions and procedures are often inconsistent with the basic ideas of natural justice. We're still ruled to some extent by a god-king who for a long time upheld a system based on personal favours, because there was nothing else in place. We have Arbs and admins who play to the audience, including on IRC and Wikipedia Review, because they want to be liked, or are scared of being disliked. We're hundreds of years behind the rest of the world's institutions when it comes to understanding what fairness entails.

We have a situation here where an Arb was willing to watch Lara/Jennavecia gain access to oversight, [28] even though he knew she'd helped a desysopped friend evade an ArbCom ban for harassment and regain adminship. The worst of it was that the Arb couldn't see that he had to resign without discussion when it came to light. This is a bad state of affairs to be in, and we're all to blame for it, because we're all part of a system that encourages it.

I urge the ArbCom to accept this case, and to make some tough decisions about the role of the ArbCom, functionaries, and admins so that the friendship culture is replaced with something more professional. We need an explicit and actionable code of conduct for Arbs (which should not be written by them!) and probably one for admins and functionaries too, with the understanding that, if people violate it, they're expected to resign without argument. When we elected you last December, we voted for change. This is an excellent chance to deliver. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved user Gatoclass

I have virtually no familiarity with any of the protagonists in this dispute, and I normally refrain from commentary in any case with which I am not personally involved, but in this case I think something needs to be said. I find it absolutely outrageous that administrators would nominate and support the adminship of a user they knew to be both desysopped and longterm blocked, without first notifying the community of the candidate's previous identity. Glasscobra's paean to Law in his RFA nom is breathtaking in its mendacity. I'm sure these users must all have been having a very good chuckle at the community's expense over the fast one they managed to pull. They have made dupes out of every user who !voted for Law in good faith, and shown their utter contempt for the community and its processes in doing so. Both Glasscobra and Jennavecia should be desysopped forthwith. Now that Jayron has "come out of the closet" and admitted to being part of this fraud, he too should lose the bit, along with anyone else who has participated in this deception.

Jennavecia, an admin whose judgement up until this moment I had respected, made the comment that her friends would always "have her back" over some "website". That is her prerogative of course, and certainly no-one could criticize her for making such a choice. However, she should also understand that from the point of view of the website, she has in effect announced her unfitness to hold a position of responsibility there.

I don't see how the community can possibly condone this sort of behaviour. It would make a mockery of every process that has been painstakingly built up over the years if we allowed this to stand. Administrators cannot be a law unto themselves, overturning community decisions by stealth in order to reward their buddies - no matter how bad they may have considered the original decisions to be. How will it look to non-admins to see administrators getting away with such behaviour? What sort of message would it send to other admins? Gatoclass (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to FayssalF

And just in response to FayssalF's comments below, in which he expresses an apparent reluctance to act upon this case apart from making some motherhood statement about the desirability of cultivating an attitude of "professionalism". I invite you for a moment to imagine someone standing for adminship who, when asked about their commitment to wikipedia policies, replied: I'll always have [my friends'] back no matter what, because we're friends regardless of what's going on with Wikipedia. I would never put a website before a friendship. How much "professionalism" can you detect in an attitude like that? How much chance do you think such a candidacy would have of being successful? How about none? In which case, why should a sitting admin who has recently made such a statement not be shown the door just as readily? At the very least, these admins should have to stand again to re-test the community's trust in their judgement. Gatoclass (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re "community based resolution"

With all due respect to those who have proposed a "community based resolution", I don't believe that is a viable option here. One only has to look at the mess that transpired after a "community based resolution" tried to get Elonka recalled not so long ago. Certain issues are simply not well handled by the community, which is why arbcom was set up in the first place.

In regards to the idea of creating a community based desysop process, which has been floating around for quite a while, I personally don't see much need for it as I think arbcom has generally handled such requests reasonably well in the past. However, it is not in my view practical to start talking about creating such a structure to deal with a here-and-now problem. If users want to develop such a process, fine, but I think this particular case needs to be dealt with now and the only effective means we have of doing so currently is through arbcom. Gatoclass (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jclemens

ArbCom should take this case, for the purpose of deciding one question: Are community sanctions binding on every administrator? If they are, then Jennavecia and Glass Cobra probably need to lose their admin bits. If they're not, and individual admins are allowed freedom of conscience to not personally enforce sanctions which they do not believe are in the best interests of Wikipedia, then there is no reason for either of them to be penalized. A simple statement of principle--a summary judgement, if you will--is appropriate, if not necessary, and will help settle the matter where other measures will not. Jclemens (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by EdChem

ArbCom should not take this case.

The basic facts here are uncontested. The question is whether the act of nominating, supporting, or concealing the fact that user:Law = user:the Undertow is sufficient to make the community lose trust in an admin continuing to hold the tools. In essence, it's about whether they fail a 'fit and proper person' test, and this decision is the community's to make in a recall procedure. It is not ArbCom's place to substitute its opinion for that of the community (even by way of motion) in this situation, even though there is no recall procedure extant. It would also be unwise of ArbCom to wade into these waters as the cases about other admins learning about Law and not acting will just continue appearing. Maybe the development of such a procedure could be a positive thing to come out of this case.

ArbCom can contribute to the resolution of problems like this in one substantial and tangible way, and that is by publishing the long-needed arbitrator recall procedures. Even before this case appeared, I had posted a question at WT:AC/N about the arbitrator recall agenda item (and I'm still hoping for an answer). Such a procedure could be a template for mandatory administrator recall procedures. Like an RfA, recall needs to allow consideration of not only specific actions but also for an overall decision as to whether a person has the trust of the community. LHvU (at Jimbo's talk page) has suggested that the procedure may need to be introduced by god-king fiat, and he may be correct - but maybe we can get community consensus to overcome self-interested resistance to introduce this overdue meaningful accountability measure. In either case, ArbCom would do the community a serious dis-service by trying to 'solve' the problem here. The flood waters on the issue of a need for a recall process will never stop rising, and ArbCom acting might build the dam a little higher but that is not in anyone's interests long-term. EdChem (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Juliancolton

I must say, the drama levels on this project are currently higher than that I've ever seen. The overall morale of Wikipedia's editors is astoundingly low these past few days, largely due to this "dispute". These recent events are having a significant impact on the community as a whole, its perception of trust, and its trust in certain users. With that being said, most—if not all—parties have come clean, so to speak, about their involvement in this situation. The rest of the community has said their piece, and has almost unanimously agreed that the actions of some user during this ordeal was inappropriate. This is certainly not something I'd like to see again in the future, but I ask that the committee reject this case in favor of a more community-based resolution. I'm in agreement with MZMcBride's statement above which submits that no good can come of this case. The Arbitration Committee exists to resolve unproductive disputes that the community has failed to resolve, and at this time I see no evidence that this dispute is continuing to cause harm to the project and requires intervention from ArbCom; in other words, WP:STICK. All this in consideration, I believe that accepting and arbitrating this case will, likely, be unproductive. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from entirely uninvolved admin Gladys J Cortez

While I agree with those who believe that Arbcom acceptance of this case would lead to no goodness and much badness, I do feel compelled to raise this point: If this situation, and the possibility of similar situations in the future, isn't enough to spur SOMEONE to create a concrete, workable, universal, and enforceable standard schema for admin recall, I question what kind of brick-to-the-collective-head we'll need. Either a solid, non-skeletal proposal needs to be brought by some visionary member of the community; or Arbcom or a similar Voice of Authority should create a committee for this specific purpose. But SOMEBODY needs to do it, and start it post-haste. (I'd take a stab at it myself, but I, as my talk page says, am on a wikibreak.)GJC 00:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

statement from DGG

I do not see how there can be community resolution, since the situation involves 1/ the repeated declared intent of one administrator, Jennavicia, to act to support her friends rather than to support the best interests of the encyclopedia and 2/ the act of another, Glass Cobra, in deliberately lying in nominating a person at RfA. The appropriate remedies in each case include ones that lie in the jurisdiction of arb com. This is one of those things which need to be settled definitively and rapidly. This is especially important because of the admitted action of a sitting arb in concealing knowledge of the false nomination. I do not see what the community can do that would be equal to the situation; drama though arb com is, community action is even worse. It would of course be possible for the two admins involved to themselves end this matter by the obvious course of action, as did the member of arb com. DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GlassCobra

I would like to begin by apologizing for my delay in posting this statement. I have spent the time attempting to collect my thoughts and working on a way to best express them. However, it seems that the delay has caused some people to come to the conclusion that I am unremorseful, which I can assure you all is untrue. I care deeply about this project and the community, and would like to take this opportunity to sincerely apologize to the people whose trust I have shaken or lost completely.

I have been in close contact with the Undertow/Law for a long time, and I know a lot about his personal situation. What I said at WT:ACN was the absolute truth: Law told me that he intended to abandon the Undertow account (which he did), and start afresh with the Law account. We had a detailed discussion about his life both on and off-wiki, and I felt assured that his personal life was in a much better place than it was when the Undertow account was blocked. As Law, he was a fine admin for the project. Up until this very recent glitch with ChildofMidnight, the vast majority of the admin actions he made were absolutely fine. I think that users essentially accusing me of allowing the drama to occur is unfair; are we now to accuse the nominators of all admins of allowing their drama to happen? Furthermore, for however much time was "wasted" on the case, I'm sure the amount of time saved by having Law as an admin, reverting vandals and issuing blocks and the like, not to mention being a productive editor and writing articles, is far, far greater. However, I do not think it fair to judge the quality of an admin simply by how much time they have "wasted" or "gained" for the project.

Law was brought to RfA and judged by the edits he'd made under that name, and the community saw fit to grant him the tools. While I am unsure of the exact amount of time that passed between the blocking of the Undertow account and the creation of the Law account, I am relatively sure that by the time Law was granted the tools, the block on the Undertow account had expired. Further, as I mentioned, Law had completely abandoned the Undertow account; I'm not really sure what the egregious and disruptive violation of WP:SOCK is that people continue to mention. It is unfortunate that his identity was revealed this way, and I reiterate my displeasure with the actions and behavior of the other editors involved in leaking the information.

I am surprised by the vitriol in some comments here, and would like to apologize again for the delay in this statement. I do note FT2's comments involving the questionable motives and bad faith on the part of certain users here, and hope that arbitrators and regular editors alike read those carefully. While I obviously do not wish my tools to be permanently revoked, I would submit to a temporary removal, or perhaps a reconfirmation RFA if necessary. I do realize the inappropriateness of my actions, and do see in hindsight that the better course of action would have been to try and have the Undertow's block rescinded, though I'm not sure how successful such a motion would have been. To sum up, I do not feel that supporting a friend and acting in the best interests of the project need to be mutually exclusive goals, and I feel that the two were one and the same in this instance. I can say with absolute certainty that were I to believe that the Undertow would not be a net positive for Wikipedia, that I would not have nominated him. Thanks, GlassCobra 00:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Moreschi

I regret that your most recent interaction with the Undertow has been unpleasant; unfortunately, I am afraid that this whole debacle has made him feel quite guilty for having put his friends through these issues. Hopefully he'll make a cogent statement here on-wiki soon. GlassCobra 00:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Jehochman and others

There appears to be a desire for me to state explicitly that I will no longer engage in these types of activities. Perhaps I was not clear enough in expressing this in my statement above, so I apologize. The community has my utmost solemn pledge that I will not be participating in any sort of backdoor dealings at any point in the future. Thanks, GlassCobra 23:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Leaky Caldron

Arbcom must take assertive action

Well we can only speculate as to his state of mind/personal circumstances alluded to above, so as far as the facts go it is no more than rhetoric intended to afford a degree of unjustified mitigation to the wrong-doing committed.

You don’t need to wait for judgement to give up your admin. function either. Just relinquish it instead of clinging on. A section of the community now lack confidence in your integrity and therefore every intervention you and your fellow miscreants make will be scrutinised endlessly, leading to all the more problems further down the line.

Sorry to appear blunt but inappropriate behaviours by trusted functionaries need to be addressed with harsh remedies in the wider interest of the Project, and not by pandering to individuals. leaky_caldron (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Barberio

Dispute has been raised as to if ArbCom should, or even may, take this case.

It is my finding, that ArbCom is entitled to take action in this case.

The facts of the matter are, as mentioned above many times, not in dispute. A previously banned administrator was allowed, through complicity of a friend, to regain administrator rights without disclosing his previous ban. Several other administrators supported this action. Further did not disclose the events when they discovered them.

The dispute is over if these acts were wrong, and are punishable.

Ultimately, this is *not* something that would be decidable in a consensus discussion. It is immediately obvious considering that those who made those acts and their supporters would be involved in any discussion, and constitute a large enough group of people to withhold consensus. This marks it as a dispute not resolvable by community means.

This case includes acts which, while not direct use of admin tools, involves use of admin priveleges. It should also be decided if granting someone the ability to use admin tools in disputed circumstances is an abuse of Admin privileges. It should be decided if covert acts against the interests of the community are an abuse of Admin privileges. It should be decided if a covert cover-up of these acts are an abuse of Admin priveleges.

This case also involves the implicit reversal of an Arbitration Sanction. It is fundamentally necessary for the Arbitration Committee to investigate and rule on cases where its prior sanctions have been circumvented, else it's sanctions would become impotent.

I strongly urge the Arbitration Committee to take up this case. I also urge it to be Fast Tracked, as statements have been made by the involved parties responding that the facts of the matter are not disputed. I recommend that as part of this fast track, there be no 'workshop' page in this case, and that the Committee quickly draft a finding of fact, a set of principles, remedies and enforcements to vote on.

I also urge caution in dismissing this case, or handling it only by summary motion. This is a case where the 'full weight of the court' is required, due to the fundamental issues involved, and particularly the overturn of a previous sanction. It would reduce the legitimacy of the committee if this case were mishandled or diminished. --Barberio (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to recommend that in this instance, the arbcom should consider giving suspended sentences on probation to those administrators they do not feel should be directly punished. Suspended sentences becoming active should there be any occurrence of misbehaviour by the admin. There has been a past history of administrators ignoring admonishments. --Barberio (talk) 12:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Arbcom legislating' and 'no policies have been broken'

I've read some complaints against taking up this case, justified with "the arbcom can not create policy", and trying to create a fog that obscures what policies have been broken.

Now, I was the major push behind that particular rule. So I feel confident and authoritative to state that this is not a valid argument in this case.

And I strongly defend the right, and even duty, of ArbCom to take up this case. Because ArbCom will not be creating new policy.

They will actually be working well within established wikipedia policy. Specifically those of

  • Wikipedia:Banning policy — Overturning and assisting the overturn of a ban without the consent of community consensus, or the Arbitration committee, is forbidden by any means.
  • Wikipedia:Sock puppetry — Alternate accounts must not be used to avoid scrutiny; mislead or deceive other editors; edit project-related discussions, such as policy debates or Arbitration Committee proceedings; or circumvent sanctions or policy. Collusion to support this is a grave breach.
  • Wikipedia:Civility — Aiding and abetting someone's breach of policy is a hostile act against the community. Engaging in a cover up is a hostile act towards the community. They are a grave breach of civil behaviour.
  • Wikipedia:Administrators — Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities.

Several people involved with this case have made clear breaches of all of the above policies.

I urge the committee to act. --Barberio (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion by Apoc2400

How about this:
Motion:

  • Principle: Misleading the Wikipedia community to help your friends gain an advantage is not ok.
  • Fact: Jennavecia, GlassCobra, User3, User4 mislead the community to help Law/the_undertow gain adminship.
  • Remedy: Jennavecia, GlassCobra, User3, User4 are admonished and reminded not to do it again.

What those of us complaining need is for ArbCom to settle the dispute and decide that what Jennavecia, GlassCobra and maybe others did was wrong. We don't need their tools back unless they do it again. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved User:Robofish

I don't normally involve myself in dramas, and wasn't going to comment on this case, but I feel GlassCobra's comment above deserves a reply. He doesn't seem to understand that what he and Jennavecia did was wrong, and thinks deception in this case was justified 'for the good of the encyclopaedia'.

It might in fact be the case that Law's becoming an admin was ultimately beneficial to Wikipedia; but that does not mean they were right to support him for adminship. By doing so, they broke our rules against sock puppetry (in spirit, if not in letter); but our rules also advise us to ignore them when doing so would improve the encyclopaedia. I think what is more serious here is the sheer lack of respect their actions showed for other members of Wikipedia - in particular, for ArbCom (for undermining their block of the_undertow) and for the commenters at RFA.

I was one of those who commented on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Law; I supported him, on the now-somewhat-ironic grounds that 'a lack of conflicts in one's history is a good sign in a would-be administrator'. I had no idea that Law was the formerly blocked and desysopposed the_undertow, and fair to say, if I had known I would probably not have supported. But the important part is that GlassCobra, Jennavecia and everyone else who knew didn't deign to tell the rest of us. They took the decision to withhold this information, knowing it was highly relevant to Law's adminship candidacy, on the basis that they were better fit to judge him than the rest of us; that most voters at RFA would hold Law's past against him, and that only by hiding it could they pass him off as a suitable admin to the voting masses. In short, they treated us like idiots.

I for one feel somewhat humiliated by their actions, to say the least, and I would expect most other people who voted in that RFA without being 'in on the secret' feel the same. The point of RFA is to examine a candidate in detail to determine if they would make a good admin; if someone supports an RFA without revealing important information about the candidate, they are treating both the process and the other voters with contempt. Perhaps if all the details have been revealed, Law would still have passed; but I doubt it, and given what has happened since I think his failing would have been justified. In any case, that was not GlassCobra and Jennavecia's decision to make; what they knew about him, they should have revealed, and let RFA voters decide.

Finally, in light of what's happened, I find the argument that all this was for the good of Wikipedia hard to sustain. That may have been their justification, but look what damage their deception has done: one arbitrator has already resigned, others users are coming under question, and the credibility of the Wikipedia system - which depends on admins treating users fairly, not forming cliques and helping out their friends - has been called into doubt.

Given all that, I don't think further desysoppings are necessary. But at the very least, those involved in helping Law evade a block and become an admin owe the rest of us their apologies. And even if it only admonished those involved for their mistakes, a judgement from ArbCom would be welcome to make the official position clear, and to help put this matter behind us. Robofish (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: the suggestion from Apoc2400 above appeared while I was typing this. It basically says what I'm saying here in considerably fewer paragraphs. A big ArbCom case isn't necessary, but just a symbolic admonishment would be helpful. Robofish (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gazimoff

I'm frankly surprised and dissapointed by all of this, and feel that some perspective is urgently needed. Firstly though, some simple questions:

  • Has User:Law caused any serious material damage to encyclopedia articles or content, either through normal editorial practice or use of administrator tools (apart from the noted ChildOfMidnight episode)?
  • Has the recent episode caused any serious damage to the reputation of the project? By this I am asking if there has been any onward reporting in the popular or technical press?

From what I can tell, there has been minimal if any damage to the product (the encyclopedia) or to the project through this episode. There seems to be much discussion about the morality of what has happened, almost as if there is anger at being not being in on some shared secret as much as anything else.

Expecting people to hold loyalty to a website above family, friendships and other close associations is at best optimistic and at worst ludicrous. This isn't a job, this is a volunteer effort. This isn't a political party, it's an academic endeavour. This isn't a factory floor where product is just squeezed out - it's a crowdsourcing effort. Life is full of priorities other than what goes on here, and it's important to remember that. Administrators are selected to be able to make a range of judgements on order to safeguard the content of the project and improve quality, not to make automaton decisions in robotic fashion - if that is what you're after, perhaps changing criteria at RfA would be more appropriate.

If there is concern about policy or process, then RfC is the correct venue. Arbcom isn't here to set policy, only to interpret it. By everyone's admission, there is a gap of policy in several areas brought to light by this episode - but that's an area for the community, not Arbcom, to decide. Gazimoff 17:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Ben MacDui

I can only echo the views of Moreschi, Karanacs, Sandstein, SlimVirgin, Modernist, Barberio and others above. These actions are unacceptable and sanctions are required. If another process were available it could be considered, but there isn't. It is irrelevant whether or not User:Law "caused any material damage" - that is not the issue at stake. Nor is being a volunteer an excuse for an administrator deliberately evading an important community policy. It does not need a clairvoyant to know that if those entrusted with an organisation's safe-keeping set themselves abysmally low standards then its future is unlikely to be a happy one. Ben MacDui 14:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Finell

Sock puppetting is a very serious offense. Is there really any question that it is very serious misconduct for any Wikipedian, especially an administrator who is responsible for enforcing community norms, to knowingly support a sock's RfA? Isn't there already policy language to the effect that an admin is held to the highest behavioral standards? The recent Civility poll revealed a fairly widespread belief that admins routinely apply a double standard that favors other admins and well established editors. I am on record that I do not share that view. However, there are isolated instances where some admins are unduly lenient toward misbehavior by other admins (comparable to the more universal culture of real world cops not "ratting out" cops) or by certain favored misbehaving editors (including some perennial troublemakers). It does not take very many of those incidents to feed a perception that this is the rule rather than the exception—that is one of the prime bases of prejudice.

I once stumbled into an incident where editor was blocked for willfully vandalizing that day's main page FA (I spotted the vandalism and followed up) because he was angry that his RfA (his second or third) didn't pass. He apologized, blamed the stress of losing the RfA, and promised not to do it again. The block was lifted (which is OK, although sitting out 12–24 hours might have been more equitable) and his block was expunged from his record (I didn't even know that was possible) as were his vandalism edits. I thought that was unjustifiable. In additional to smacking of favoritism, the incident of vandalism should be known by those who vote if there is another RfA for this individual. If I vandalized some obscure page out of pique, or perhaps the user page of someone who made very offensive remarks, I would be blocked and the block would not be expunged from my record, despite my having a clean record (the would-be admin's record wasn't clean). That is how it should be, and how it should have been for the disappointed would-be admin.

In my opinion, it would be in the long term interest of administrators as a group, and of the Wikipedia project, for administrators to bend over backward to avoid any appearance of favoritism to fellow admins or their cronies. Enforcement is more difficult if there is a prevalent perception that admins unfairly favor their own—and the perception is more important than the reality. That means by holding admins to a higher standard of conduct than ordinary editors, just as experienced editors (like me) should be held to a higher standard than newbies, who understandably don't know our policies and guidelines.

Statement by Jennavecia

I sent a response to the committee a couple of days ago, but now that the dust is settling a bit and I've got a good grasp on the concerns of the community, I'll post here. If you think FT2, NYB, Abd, and Carcharoth are bad, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

I first bumped into Chip on this project at his RFA as the_undertow in the summer of 2007. He saw my girlie sig, clicked on my user page, and was inclined to follow me around to get my attention. Some funny edit summaries and a couple talk page convos later and we were wiki-friends. Hard times led another wiki-friend at the time, Giggy, to give me Chip's off-wiki contact info. I sent him a message about a week after that, and six days later he wrote me back. Two years ago this week he and I had our first real conversation, and the rest is history. Most people meet their best friend for lunch now and then; mine lives 2,500 miles away. I have my friends that live near me, that I go out with, but when I really need that someone to turn to, that's Chip. We've helped each other through some crazy hard times and he's the one I know will answer when I call no matter what, and I'll always answer for him.

So there's the personal background. Here's the wiki history: I know pretty much all the details of the_undertow's ban. Was it necessary? Yes. Was is excessive, though? I think so. He attempted to appeal, and from what I'm told there was general agreement among the ArbCom of 2008 to accept his request, but the thread went silent and was apparently forgotten. I wanted Chip to come back as the_undertow, and that's what he wanted too. His personality is tied to that account, just as mine is tied to this one. His images, his sense of humor, his interests... those were all attached to the_undertow. AC was silent, though. So he went on as Law and I supported him in that. He wanted to continue to edit, and he wanted to do so constructively. He started his Master's program at SDSU and used WP to help his studies, writing articles on the cases he was assigned. Well-sourced articles that went through DYK is what he created. In participating at DYK as Law, he found an interest that he had not come upon as the_undertow. Working that area is what re-sparked his desire to be an admin.

So why not go back to the_undertow at that point? Well, he'd already been ignored once, and trust levels were not high with ArbCom. And I get it, how dare there be a mention of trust! But that was part of it. So why not just admit Law == the_undertow? Well, I was sure the AC knew; he'd told too many people and dropped too many clues. He was sure they didn't and he feared if he revealed it he'd be re-banned. I was sure that because Law was such a good editor, he wouldn't. We talked about this extensively, but ultimately it was his decision, and I told him I would support him no matter what. He decided to go forward with Law, despite really wanting to come back as the_undertow to sort of reclaim his identity, if that makes sense.

So why support Law's RFA? I knew his intentions were good. Some people say intentions don't matter. Well, to me (and to Chip), intentions are everything. Decisions are made all the time, and often they are mistakes. It's human nature. Things don't always go as planned, all things aren't always considered. At the end of the day, intentions are what matter. I trusted him to do well with administrative privileges. Is that a matter of me presuming I'm better fit to judge him for adminship that anyone else? Well, maybe it is. I didn't think of it in those terms, though, so I don't know. I surely know him better than anyone here, maybe anyone else at all. Is that why I kept it a secret? No. My vote was based on trust, the same as it is for every candidate I vote on in RFA. I've trusted him with personal information that I'd not shared with anyone else; why would I not trust him with adminship? I supported Law's RFA because I had seen the changes in Chip since his ban. His changed views, his new focus. I knew without doubt that he wanted to improve the project and I trusted he would do well... and he did. He made mistakes and he had his moments, but he was a good admin.

That said, there is misunderstanding or misinterpretation of my words on AN/I. (Most of the following I posted to DGG's talk page earlier.) I never said I would support a friend over the best interests of the project, and I wouldn't. That's not what I'm talking about and that's not why I'm here. I didn't support him in everything he did. There were things I didn't agree with, and those things I talked to him about. However, where I thought his actions improved the project, I supported him. Where I believed it was for the benefit of the project, I supported him, regardless of SOCK. He attempted to appeal his ban and his request was ignored. Not rejected, ignored. I may have broken the spirit of a policy, but I did so with the belief that the project would be improved for it. And it was. I wouldn't rat out a friend for a website, though. If he had gone rogue and started causing trouble, I would have handled it on-wiki as if he was just another editor whose behavior needed to be dealt with, and off-wiki I would have ripped into him in that way I do. I didn't have to do that, though.

I don't expect to bring anyone around to my view, but I'm not at all shy about stating it. I may lack the ability to clearly word it, but I don't mind clarifying. To cover a few other points. Was it a mass conspiracy where we all met and coordinated ways to cover for Chip and carry out actions of protection? No. There was/is no cabal. GlassCobra and I didn't conspire to get Chip into adminship as Law to do our bidding. Rarely did we cross paths. We didn't work the same areas, we didn't edit the same articles. I didn't use my administrative privileges to protect him at any point. Where I backed him up on things was where I agreed with whatever he had done, the times when I believed he deserved defense. Does that mean it was always without bias? Probably not. If someone else had unblocked CoM and ended up at ArbCom, would I have written the same statement? I don't know. I would have supported them pretty much the same, though. I can say that with certainty.

As for where I stand now... ya know, a dozen people can say the exact same thing, but you'll take it differently depending on who's saying it. Some people's opinions are move valuable to us, depending on previous interactions, assumed intentions, etc. While I'm being honest, I'll let you know that some people's opinions don't matter to me, just as I'm sure mine doesn't matter to them. That's fine. When it comes to this case, I was basically unfazed to begin with. Thatcher's was the first statement that really gave me pause. I've always had a great deal of respect for him, so that one hit me hard. Reading comments from others I respect who stated they'd lost respect and trust in me... that sat me down, so to speak. However, it was my boyfriend telling me that if he didn't know me, he would have supported not only my desysop, but my ban. It's one thing to hear it from the people you respect; quite another from the person you love.

Do I regret what I did? No. Life is too short for regrets. Do I think I did something "wrong"? By my definition of wrong, no. I broke the spirit of a policy and the project was improved because of it. Would I do it again? After this shitstorm, surely not. All that said, I think all that's left is, am I apologetic? To a degree. I apologize to those whose trust and respect I lost, for giving them reason to change their view of me. I've always been careful not to abuse my positions of trust. Clearly I apply that as much to my personal relationships as I do to my responsibilities here. My choice to have the former trump the latter caused some to lose their faith in me. I find that highly unfortunate and I am saddened by it. Further, I apologize to those whose trust and respect for me remains, for the drama that affected them. I did not foresee this reaction. This is far beyond what I anticipated. For the rest—for those who neither had respect for me nor held any trust in me to begin with—I offer no consolations. I wouldn't put a website before a friendship. I volunteer my time here because I believe there is valuable work to be done, but I would never consider that more valuable than a true friendship. Lara 05:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Will Beback

This statement is full of errors. We're not a formal group at all. Our membership rules are mostly jokes. The only serious one is the image that makes you a member must have you in a bathrobe and you have to have at least one thumb in the upright and locked position. We don't have a domain. We had a domain over a year ago. It hosted pretty much the same page you see at WP:BRC. We had a Facebook page. I guess it's still there. No one ever really used it that I know of. Riana created it, but I don't think it was ever active. I don't remember there ever being a Yahoo group. It may have been created, but it was never used. We do have an IRC channel, which is really more my private channel as for all of its existence it's had more people who were not members than those who were. It doesn't see much action lately. Usually about five people in there at any given time. It's all but tagged historical at this point.

Ched Davis and Iridescent aren't members of the Bathrobe Cabal. Pedro and I don't even like each other, which is clear from his statement here. And EVula clerking an RFA, considering he's a 'crat, isn't shocking. As far as the meetup, it would be best if people stopped assuming that everyone whose name is on the page was there... or a BRC member. The meeting wasn't some... I don't even know. This whole thing is out of hand. It was a meetup. Nothing more. Keegan was amongst those at the meetup too (and he's not a member of the BRC, but Daniel is). Conveniently he's not included in the statement. If people have nothing better to do than investigate terry cloth afficionados, so be it, but you're wasting your time. And regarding our support votes, if I have to again explain how there is trust in friendship, I've wasted my time. Lara 14:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Lara
As a plain old user contributing at a pretty uninteresting level, I need trust in you, being one of the elected functionaries around here. I think your various explanations here [29] and partial apology above is pretty mealy-mouthed, I hope you don’t mind me saying.
You could readily have kept your wiki-friendship loyalty separate to your fiduciary responsibilities if you had only seen through the miasma that appears to cloud your judgement. When you are on here your loyalty is to the whole enterprise, not to do favours for your wiki-friends. It seems that in any dispute in which your friends became engaged you would be likely to use your privileges in their favour, regardless of merit. That is unacceptable. Leaky Caldron 15:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a functionary. Mealy mouthed? I do mind. I couldn't have stated things much more clearly. Miasma? The hyperbole is unnecessary. I like the unintended pun with fiduciary, though. And it's not a wiki-friendship; it transcended Wikipedia long ago. That said, I don't appreciate you responding to my statement, in my own section no less, by completely dismissing it. If you think I'm lying, by all means, write up a statement detailing why. Lara 16:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal by Uncle G

I see various people commenting that they wish one or more de-sysoppings, but that variously either they do not believe that the Arbitration Committee represents the full weight of the editor community as a whole, or that there is no process for such a community de-sysoppings available.

I have, therefore, constructed such a process, for use if you wish it.

The process is Wikipedia:Community de-adminship. There is a full guide to its operation at Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship; and an example request for Community de-adminship, that can be copied and pasted into a new request sub-page for whomever the Committee decides to present for community review, can be found at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Example.

I strongly recommend starting by reading the Guide. It should be clear from that (a) what it is based upon, (b) what community consensus decision it is narrowly construed to provide a process for, and (c) how it works. I've tried to make it simple, straightforward, and easily comprehensible (to the point of being downright obvious) by people who already understand RFA, Bureaucrats, and so forth.

As I said, this is an option for you to choose if you are looking for a way to refer a de-sysopping decision to the community. You can choose to use this bold new process, or not. I make no statement as to whether there should be de-sysoppings in this case.

Uncle G (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Will Beback

The Bathrobe Cabal (BRC), despite its casual name, is a rather formal group with membership rules which has had a domain name, a Facebook page, a Yahoo group, an IRC channel, and even a recent meetup. Only admins were allowed to join at first and it may have had a dozen or two members in all. At least seven BRC members !voted in support of Law's RfA: LaraLove (who founded the BRC together with The undertow and a third user), GlassCobora, Jayron32, user:Ched Davis, user:Hmwith, user:Iridescent, and user:Pedro. Another member, user:EVula, edited the RfA without voting. Looking back, The undertow !voted to support the RfAs of Hmwith, Pedro, Iridescent, GlassCobra, LaraLove, and Jayron32, and for EVuala's second RfB. Law also !voted in EVula's Oversight election.

The scope of this case is larger than the four people named as parties. I gather that Law has stated that several dozen people knew of his previous identity. It is reasonable to surmise that more members of the Bathrobe Cabal, and more participants in the RFA, knew than just the three who've come forward. Clearly, this is not a band of vandals or POV pushers — these are functionaries, admins, and other valued community members: good people who contribute positively to the project. The ArbCom should seek remedies that address the past problematic behavior without discouraging future participation.   Will Beback  talk  08:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

user:Ched Davis and user:Iridescent have contacted me to say that they have never been members of the BRC, so I've struck through their names. To further clarify, there's no evidence that any of the people who were in the BRC, and who haven't come forward, have done anything wrong. However it is likely that there are more people who were aware of this than the few who have admitted it, and it's possible that some of our most productive editors and respected functionaries were involved.   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also #Comment to Willbeback from user:Pedro, above.   Will Beback  talk  22:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by somewhat involved Steven Zhang

The length of this thread has to set records. I first knew the fact that Law = the undertow about 3 weeks ago. I didn't know the circumstances as to how the undertow became Law, or when the Law account started editing. I'm somewhat conflicted here, and can sympathize with both sides of this dispute, and realize the inner conflict, betraying a friend or betraying the trust of the community. Both present a bad result. I'd hate to be in Lara's position, especially as I understand they are rather close.

I don't think a full blown RFAR will generate anything productive, unless drama falls into that category. A motion with admonishment and advice, etc, would suffice. Lara and Glasscobra are open to recall. If you feel it's needed, ask them to resign. I think it would be a net loss to lose them as admins, and I doubt this will happen again. Desysopping isn't needed. That said, arbcom gave handed down punishments that don't fit the crime in the past, so I guess we will see. I just hope this doesn't turn into a 100 subsection thread. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 09:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Mjroots

From WP:NOTPERFECT

Administrators who ... have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed.

In this case, the admins involved have lost the trust of a section of the community. They should each do the honourable thing and resign their adminship. They may choose not to do so, but in that case there should be a full hearing into the circumstances of this case. Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by unbanned sockpuppet Jack Merridew

This is a mess. I don't have much connection to any of the involved editors; just a few minor chats with Lara, whom I believe has the best interests of the projects at heart.

The key thing that happened here was that a shortcut was taken. It's a shortcut I've taken and gotten caught at. About two and a half months before The undertow was banned, I fessed to my past and was banned. I did not sock and I did appeal to the AC. After few bits of dialogue and a brief unban that proved contentious, I was largely put on ignore for months. My editing did not decrease, it rather increased, but on other projects. I have just over 19,000 edits to en:wp in this account, but almost 31,000 to all WMF projects. I'm an admin on Wikisource. After approximately 10,000 edits to other projects, the notion of my return was considered, and after several more months of discussion, en:wp has me back as a street-legal sockpuppet.

I did eight months in BANTOWN and earned a return via the front door. And I intended to seek adminship here. I'm a software developer and I build websites. There are a lot of useful things I can do with tools.

I don't believe there was any improper use of tools here, but Law's adminship was illegitimate. It is possible to return to this site properly, but it is not easy. It's not supposed to be. It is, however, harder than it has to be. Truth is, most banned users should never be allowed back. It is not just a question of waiting out a ban as WP:Standard offer asks. The core thing that I did to get back was not the time and was not the useful edits to other projects, it was earning the trust of people elsewhere and this is primarily accomplished by being straight with them. Rebuilding trust does take time and being useful helps.

Socking is easy. It's a test of a person's commitment to turning over a new leaf. I have given my word that I will never sock again.

Cas Liber is one of my mentors and this mess has cost the community the arb that received the most support in the last election. I have not yet spoken with him about this situation, but my feeling is that he got caught in a bind. This is the real cost of the cheat that occurred here.

Sincerely, Jack Merridew 12:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to go down to hell; Night and Day the Gates of Dark Death stand wide; But to climb back up again, to retrace ones steps to the open air, there lies the problem, the difficult task.

— Virgil: The Aeneid

Statement by Dtobias

Of course it's an MMORPG, and the person who started this RFAr is a highly skilled player at it.

Statement on this absurd ridiculousness by ChildofMidnight

We all know that editors contribute on Wikipedia with undisclosed histories. We could have made disclosure part of the RfA process. We chose not to.A clarification that disclosure of actual wrongdoing is required and (perhaps) a clarification of when and how editors returning improperly can and should disclose their pasts is needed, not this torch and pitchfork fest of head hunting. Needless to say the editors that came clean are the ones being punished, not the ones who've remained silent about what they knew. What a complete travesty.

There was no disruption associated with the editors and admins involved in this controversy. Since returning Law was a model editor and admin. So all these punishments serve only to encourage sordid outing campaigns to go after editors personally when a dispute erupts. This is entirely disruptive, divisive and punitive (and was done after a dispute over an article about some Boner. No kidding!). And now, as has been well documented by other editors, this is being used to settle scores and Arbcom is playing along.

If we want to make disclosing what we know about one another a policy then do it. But the crazed calls for severe punishment sought those editing in good faith and another editor who turned over a new leaf and returned to wikipedia with a new identity with which he's made nothing but constructive contributions is absurd. That we're trying to take down other good faith editors and admins for following IAR and keeping quiet to support an editor making nothing but helpful contributions to Wikipedia is totally insane.

It's amazing that Arbcom doesn't encourage reform and promote the best interests of Wikipedia instead of backing those seeking mad vengeance. With all the socking, abusive POV pushing, canvassing, stalking, harassment, cabalism and other nastiness going on here, that our highest body is choosing to go after this distinguished group of Wikipedians demonstrates shockingly poor judgment.

The protocols for blocked and banned editors to get reviews and reprieves is completely broken and unworkable. People are treated like dirt and ignored. Admin abuse is swept under the rug. Instead of fixing these problem we are doubling down on the stupidity and insisting that those with secrets keep them quiet, that was after all Law's failing here was it not??? If he hadn't told anyone who he was then there was no problem. But he made efforts to come clean so we have to wring his neck. Shameful.

That an editor evaded a block or ban (or whatever) to edit constructively after his appeals were ignored is such a non-problem that those seeking sanctions and calling for heads based on it should be ashamed of themselves and are the ones lacking judgment and common sense. Those editors leading the charge are, of course, those with their own problematic histories. And the false accsuations and smears made by WMC, Jehochman, and other editors involved in this witch hunt are far more disturbing and damaging than the good faith efforts of those trying to do good work on Wikipedia despite all the obstacles we've set up to make it difficult for them. The leaders of the mob are the ones that need sanctioning. Give them all wikibreaks.

Statement by [insert User name]

Clerk notes

Requests to clerks

The posts [30][31] by Ottava Rima are outright trolling/revenge taking/personal attacks and I request that a clerk remove them and take appropriate measures to preserve decorum. Jehochman Talk 18:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I find them wholly accurate and appropriate. Majorly talk 18:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The questioned comment is not so heinous and beyond the the standards of civilized decency as to require clerk removal. I do wish to remind all parties to only comment in their own sections and leave it to the clerks to remove improperly positioned comments. MBisanz talk 18:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could we maybe not have everyone's prior disputes boil over into this? We know there are long-running disputes between a variety of users here. That doesn't mean that we need to personalize those disputes or automatically presume to connect those disputes with prior issues. Let's try to act with a bit more maturity, ok? And to be clear, that's a very general request not aimed at any specific user. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It should be unnecessary to know half of a bunch of intertwined Wikilifestories and a family tree of their alliances and nemeses to figure out why someone might be commenting in a particular way or taking excessive interest at a particular place about someone or some issue. (This is not aimed at the parties or even particular to this case - I've seen it a lot in my 3½ years here.) Orderinchaos 07:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recusals

  • Due to friendships with both Lara and GC, I am not going participate in this case. hmwith☮ 00:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recusing myself as a clerk as well, obviously. GlassCobra 00:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/3/3/3) (accept/decline/motion/recuse/undecided)

  • Recuse based on prior issues and interaction with The_undertow. For the record, I did not know that Law was the same individual until within the past couple of days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting further comments — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if it is appropriate to declare here that I've skipped a few statements above just after reading the first two or three sentences. I've done it because those kind of statements add nothing concrete but instead they prove once again that some users use to personalize issues and forget about rationalism. I am 100% sure that if this case gets accepted the workshop would become just another venue for extending the feuds, bullying the clerks and accusing ArbCom for all the horrible things. So, if you are here to point fingers at each other then I must say "sorry, no". And if you are here to discuss the concept of friendship vs Wikipedia professionalism then I believe ArbCom can be helpful in giving its opinion. That said, I personally won't sanction someone for any violation without precedent unless it concerns a very serious violation. I'd suggest a motion along the lines that professionalism comes first because believing that my friend's actions are positive and how everyone measures them remains something subjective while professionalism is not. If ArbCom members are happy with the motion then I believe it would become a basis for future community dealings. Now, I'd be happy to read comments on this. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to Jehochman. I suggest a motion (along the lines discussed above) which would help the community update wp:admin and... we are done! -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to JoshuaZ. Hearing from Lara and GlassCobra would be great. I'd like to hear about their opinion on the issue here. Let me get this clear... Friendship is a very noble thing but that is totally different in the context of encyclopedia debates because at the end we end up using that same friendship to violate wp:battle. It is a pity and a shame that after 8 years of existence we are still using "me/you and my/your friends" in debates. That is very divisive creating disunity and harms the concept of collaboration; something which goes against the wp:5P. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There are three proposed texts of a motion so far. We have this of Jehochman, this of SirFozzie and the Pete Forsyth's edits to Sir Fozzie's motion. I urge people to take that to the talk page and discuss them. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting my general and strong agreement with Fayssal's comments. Waiting on statements from GC and Lara. However, I will note that implications and explicit statements indicating that a personal sense of right and wrong trumps community norms and policies is deeply concerning. Also, I sympathetic to the statements of Durova and others regarding the lack of dispute resolution, failure to address such situations through normal policy/process development, and related points. Vassyana (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My observations: 1) The behind the scene discussions (dating back to mid 2008) between ArbCom members and the undertow (and other people) likely played a role in the way the situation played out. 2) Because of the variety of opinions expressed and the harshness of the wording stated in various comments on this page, I'm not convinced that user conduct RFCs are going to give meaningful feedback to the involved parties now. 3) ArbCom can desysop admins or pass motions related to their use of their tools, power, and status without a case. Given these factors, I not inclined to take a case. Instead, I think that a statement by ArbCom possibly accompanied by motions is the way to go. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Apology from John Vandenberg --John Vandenberg (chat) 10:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This case involves a Wikipedia Review regular, therefore I recuse, but I have some comments.
    1. I was not aware of The_undertow's undisclosed return to this site before John Vandenburg forwarded the IRC logs less than 3.5 days ago.
    2. There are assertions that ArbCom and/or Jimmy Wales might have known about The_undertow's return. It appears that The_undertow/Law tried to create this impression himself. First, I've searched arbcom-l for all hits of "undertow," and I find no hint of The_undertow's return in any message before 3.5 days ago. Any arbitrators who knew about it must learned about it through other means. Second, Jimmy Wales was asked whether he knew, and he has told ArbCom that he did not. Given the circumstances of The_undertow's ban last year, I think it's highly unlikely that any participants from that era would have consented to him returning while undisclosed—and certainly not running for adminship. Third, The_undertow/Law is not above directly lying to protect himself and his friends. I sincerely hope that his friends are not so deceitful. I praise Casliber for his candor in this matter.
    3. There is a urban legend that the ban of The_undertow was somehow not a bona fide act of ArbCom. A look at the archives shows me that this rumor is simply untrue. On Jun 16 15:05, an arbitrator asked the committee what should be done about The_undertow situation, which had escalated with a stubbornly unwithdrawn legal threat, increasingly erratic missives, and an utterly reprehensible WP:POINTy BLP about one of our editor volunteers. An earlier move to block The_undertow divided the Committee, but within 25 minutes of the first inquiry, five other then-sitting arbitrators had weighed in favoring a block, including those who were previously opposed or uncertain. This was an astonishingly decisive, unanimous, and rapid response. Granted, the block was far from best practices—a former arbitrator implemented it before discussion was complete. That said, I cannot doubt that it was fully ratified as a block under the authority of ArbCom. The_undertow was unjustified in socking.
    Cool Hand Luke 23:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept to deal with by motion - it's taken me a few days to both get round to this request and to read all the statements above. There are certainly grounds here to deal with this by motion (either requiring individual admin recall processes to be initiated, or for immediate desysoppings). There may be grounds for a full case. A statement from Jennavecia would help. Carcharoth (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold; in abeyance until some motions can be put forth. While the matter is clearly divisive and causes a great deal of disruption (out of scale with the actual gravity of the matter, in my opinion), there is little to nothing a full case can achieve: there is no significant evidence to find, and workshopping will lead to little but repetition of the flurry of ad hominem attacks and calls for vengeance we have seen in the past several days. — Coren (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

Motions have been posted here. — Coren (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RS and Fringe Noticeboard

Initiated by Ottava Rima (talk) at 14:35, 25 September 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 Ottava Rima

As you can see, the listed parties are those who have constantly going around in the current instance and causing disruption. I did not include Paul B, as he has this time not backed people up on various talk pages. Gwen Gale has been included as someone who was far too close to Antandrus to be neutral and her non-community approved block for something that clearly contradicts what a personal attack is shows a strong conflict of interest. Antandrus cheering on the block and trying to justify it only verifies. Jehochman is included for threatening sanctions against me while there is clear evidence of meat puppetry. There will be evidence provided as to why his actions are inappropriate in more than one way.

This matter has gone on with me personally since 2008, and has happened to others since before that. As I have sent emails, diffs, and the such to various Arbitrators and talked to them, my involvement with this group started back at Ludovico Ariosto, where one member, Folantin, decided that she did not like how sources described someone as a Christian writer. At both Talk:Ludovico Ariosto and the Fringe noticeboard. As you can see, there are many of the people listed as parties that are constantly backing up each other, not offering any new information, and merely bullying to defend their friend. It came up in Itsmejudith's RfA, where her close relationship with Moreschi et al provided enough evidence that many people could not trust her for adminship.

During my own RfA, Folantin was one of the most aggressive people. I assumed Antandrus was acting in good faith with their concerns and I answered a question on their talk page here. I did not realize that Antandrus and Folantin were close friends. I questioned Antandrus in email why they allowed Folantin to act that way and they said that they thought it was problematic but would do nothing about it. I can forward that email if necessary. I don't like the trouble, so I stopped bothering with RS and Fringe noticeboards because that is where the group spends their time. A quick check will see that they respond on many of the same pages and same threads, always in support of each other.

There were no problems until Folantin and Dbachmann decided to destroy the Persian Empire page and turn it into a redirect without consensus. Edit warring, tag teaming, threats, and other bullying from the group continued. There was no consensus formed, and when there was consensus it was utterly ignored. This shows that there is very little concern about the actual page, and that it is personalized. The fact that they constantly shift from saying there was one empire, to two, to three, back to one in direct contradiction to what everyone else is saying shows that it is not a content dispute but to merely be contradictory. More attacks from Dbachmann.

It is obvious that there is not a content dispute but a behavioral problem since Oscar Wilde, with no connection to the Persian Empire, as the next article they attempted to use for disruption. There was very little room to claim that a source not an expert in an a specific individual nor using any sources as verification can make a claim that the individual is a pederast. Itsmejudith and John B attempted to, and quite vigorously, in the manner that they have done for a long time. It is no wonder that the first people to step in were Antandrus and Folantin. The fact that they claim that -I- am bullying, as if someone is capable of bullying a group with over 8 people and multiple admin is possible, only verifies that they are playing games with Wikipedia, violating multiple policies, and acting in a manner that is completely unacceptable. Since many are admin and many of them have abused their position of admin, it seems that ArbCom and only ArbCom can put a stop to this. I am confident that if this becomes an accepted case, that others with equal concerns about these individuals will come forth and show evidence which verifies that this is not an isolated case.

Reply to Akhilleus - it can be seen in every page from the Ludovico Ariosto pages to the current Persian Empire, ANI, etc, that Akhilleus is there, constantly backing people up, arguing the same points, responding for other people, and other abusive acts that are in violation of meat puppetry standards. This was not one isolated action, but he appears in -every- incident. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Thatcher - Itsmejudith started a Wikiquette against me. After that failed, she opened an ANI thread here. I put up some of the evidence that I have submitted to multiple Arbitrators so far on the ANI showing that there is a pattern of disruptive behavior that Itsmejudith and others were involved in. In retaliation, Jehochman claimed I was being incivil and threatened sanctions against me. Jehochman, who has worked closely with Akhilleus and others in the past, and who spent quite a bit of time at Fringe noticeboard with the individuals in question, is not an unbiased party in the matter. While claiming -I- am bullying, they are using admin actions as intimidation. I had no other choice but to take the evidence to ArbCom in order to protect from retaliatory threats and intimidation by those like Jehochman. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Akhilleus - Akhilleus's responses on the noticeboards, the Ludovico Ariosto page, the Persian Empire pages, et al, all show a constant - 1. he responds in place of others, 2. he backs up others without putting forth his own opinion, and 3. when it is revealed that the opinions of his friends contradicts policies, he promotes them anyway. Those three actions are the definition of meat puppetry. As an admin, he should know not to do such and the weight of his actions in the matter. His claim that I am making accusations without evidence is blatantly wrong. It is one thing to claim that there is not enough evidence, but it is quite different to say that I have not put forth anything I consider evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Bwilkins - I would ask that he reread the evidence and notice that there is nothing about Giano here and that this page deals with an issue that is far older than any of the Giano problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Sandstein - I have pointed out what many, many others have pointed out, which also prompted you to put up a admin review on yourself. Your statement seems to have nothing to do with the above facts laid out, and I would welcome you to deal with the issue at hand. Many of the diffs you listed clearly have no incivility or personal attacks, so it makes it strange that you would even list them. You introducing arguments dealing with people abusing what WP:NPA says to justify bad blocks into a case about long term meat puppetry and bullying with no connection to NPA or to Giano is strange at best. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Fullstop - Fullstop, you were added because you were edit warring at Persian Empire and have back to back helped with edit warring in multiple pages with Dbachmann and Folantin. Proxy reverting so that others don't technically violate 3RR is problematic. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed Fullstop - as you can see above, I never included him in the rationale and, after discussion, there was no real need to have him listed as part of this, though his participation is still welcome. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Antandrus - Antandrus claims to have no involvement on specific pages. He leaves out the fact that he was heavily involved at ANI and talk pages, and constantly threatened blocks and other attacks which were pointed out by others who requested him to back down. If he had no prior relationship with Itsmejudith, why did they go out of their way to respond on that talk page? Either they were stalking my contribs or there was a prior relationship between the two. The appearance of Folantin there also and the continued pattern of behavior on that talk page is telling. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Antandrus's accusation "He tolerates no disagreement with his point of view" - At Nicolo Giraud, I was able to work with User:Haiduc to get the article to FA level. There was over 6 months worth of dispute covering multiple pages with much strife between us. Yet I was able to strike a compromise to settle the page, make both sides unwilling to continue edit warring, and to get the page to FA level. At The Lucy poems page, there was problems between User:Ceoil and myself and yet we were able to eventually work together to get the page to FAC. User:Malleus Fatuorum had constant disagreement on grammar and language at the Samuel Johnson page and we rarely agree on anything, yet we were able to work to a compromise and I allowed him quite a bit of language control even though I do not agree with some of his beliefs on the matter (as can be verified by various FAC and GAN reviews). I have a long history of working with people that absolutely do not agree with me or hold conflicting points of view. That is not the case here. The case is simply a group of people that want to destroy pages, not build an encyclopedia. You cannot work with such people. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Moreschi - Moreschi's venom here is not surprising. After providing over 12 sources that claimed Christopher Smart was a freemason, two users who use the Masonic wikiproject decided that there was no proof and started removing cited information. They notified a noticeboard that Moreschi and company above have always worked at and he decided that I was being "tendentious" in insisting that 12 sources by the biographers of Christopher Smart along with verification from two Masonic sources (a Masonic Lodge and the London library) was not enough to justify keeping material in. Was there 3 RR? No. There was "tendentious editing", which meant whatever he wanted it to mean. His appearance at Talk:Ludovico Ariosto was not surprising. His venom since then is not surprising. If Arbitrators would wish to go back that far, I would like to have the case amended to include his name. His appearance and venom here suggests that his original behavior has not changed, and that this is motivated by something deeper than what is proper for administrators to act. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to SarekOfVulcan - When someone puts up 12 sources, with a one being published by a Masonic group stating that an individual was a well known an influential Free Mason, and two members of a project say that there is no evidence and start edit warring out all mention of the individual, then chances are that there is a problem with their behavior. I was not the only one to notice their problematic attitudes. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Itsmejudith - I would recommend anyone reading her statement to then read her RfA, read the interaction between her and Moreschi, the fall out when Moreschi was dominating her RfA, attacking people, answering for her, etc. They can also look at the Fringe noticeboard on Ludovico Ariosto link to see Itsmejudith working with the group. They can also look at her talk page to see who comes to her defense. This is not a coincidence, and I have not pointed out other instances of it happening where I was not involved. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Gwen Gale - I have evidence that verifies that 1. there was a long conflict between Gwen Gale and myself on her interpretation of NPA, 2. that she is close friends with Antandrus and was working with Antandrus, and 3. that Gwen Gale was a previous indeffed user who has caused a lot of problems over time and should never have been trusted with ops to begin with, and her abuse of them in multiple ways, including blocking to help her friends bully and intimidate others, only verifies that she is a problematic user. I do thank Gwen Gale to confirm that she receives emails about my conduct, which verifies the communication and pattern that can be seen from on wiki behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add to Reply to Gwen Gale - When even Roux and Chillum (two individuals that really don't like me) say that her block of me was bad, then her block of me was bad. It is clear that the block was done not out of objective beliefs, mistaken beliefs, or anything else. It was revenge, intimidation, and completely inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Folantin's accusations - 1. If anyone wants to verify my credentials in Persian history, please contact Josiah Rowe, as he can testify what our education entailed. 2. Everyone knows that I am an expert on 18th century history and also maintained the 18th century page and expanded it to its current position. This shows where Folantin, after his edit war against Wizardman when he told him that there was no consensus for the change, began to change all instances of Persian Empire that were used properly to push for her POV. This is edit warring across multiple pages to further her original destruction of the Persian Empire page. Yes, the Persian Empire existed in the 18th century and Nader Shah was a Persian Emperor. After pointing out the difference between Persian Empire and Iran, she edit warred with attacks in his edit summary. He then claimed that the Persian Empire page was a redirect to something else, which was when I realized that he edit warred the Persian Empire page out of existence and was editing every other page to conform to her original edit warring there. His accusations of me as a stalker are only an attempt to hide long term vandalism and disruption that he gets away with from the protection of his group. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Will Beback - Your pursuit of individuals and pushing to have deletion of pages simply because they were edited by someone who was banned without any regard for the content is dangerous to Wikipedia as a whole. You have had many, many complaints by many users for these actions and your wreckless pursuit of sock puppets of banned users. You should take the fact that we had no contact before as proof of my objectivity in my responses to you and that you should reform your behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Baseball Bugs - there is nothing in the above dispute that suggests it deals with content at all. Quite the contrary, it spells out that content is only a front for harassment and that they have edit warred and bullied on multiple topics without any respect to our policies simply to intimidate and harm. There is no content dispute here. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Vassyana - Please tell me how Dispute Resolution can desysop an admin who makes one horrible block at the prompting of a group wishing the cause problems and possibly sanction another admin who puts forth sanctions. Please also tell me how it can prevent two admin adding in edit warring across multiple pages. There is substantial evidence of outright multiple admin abusing their authority and that is the heart of this matter. Dispute resolution is not capable of desysopping, which is the only possible way to protect Wikipedia against these individuals who are abusing multiple policies and destroying multiple pages simply to harass other users. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply again to Vassyana - if removing administrative privileges is not the only way to go about it, please tell me how I can clear my block log of Gwen Gale's clearly conflicted, clearly bad block that ignores what our policies are? Tell me also how other admin who have threatened to use blocks and have used blocks in the group can also be dealt with? The fact that they then use my block log as proof that I am a problem only verifies that unless they are desysopped or my block log is purged, they are able to continue their harassment. As you can see, there is long term edit warring by multiple admin on the Persian Empire page. Where are the blocks? There wont be any because people are unwilling to. They use their friends to get around consensus on content or sanctions. When you have a large group of people working together they can easily abuse every dispute resolution process, especially when this case is about two noticeboards that are part of dispute resolution. You don't take up this case and you make it clear that you think that this behavior is acceptable because there is no other way to deal with it than through ArbCom. There is no other way to deal with abusive admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to SB Johnny - He is not my friend, nor does he act friendly in any kind of way. My statement to him at Wikiversity was as a colleague that was worried about the melt down of -his- friend KillerChihauhua, who was causing trouble at ANI at the time and getting a lot of flak for it. I told him that he should probably talk to her and convince her to back down before such situations happen. In response, he starts attacking me and starts writing posts to defend her bad behavior. I find it dishonest that he would make such posts as the below. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dbachmann

Ottava Rima is one of the worst politicians and wikidramatists I have encountered in five years' active editing.

The above would be a simple content dispute, if it was even that (in actuality, the prosaic truth is that OR has no case sufficient to even make this a bona fide content dispute, a fact he tries to make up for by wikilawyering and political intrigue), and does not fall within the juristdiction of the arbcom by any stretch. Recommend a resounding decline and possibly a slap on the wrist for obnoxious and unwikilike behaviour. --dab (𒁳) 15:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

returning to this page after a week, I am exasperated to see the amount of text it has attracted. Can people please take a step back and ask themselves what this is even about? As in, in terms of relevance to the actual project? As for "absolutely no chance that the situation will be resolved without a ruling from ArbCom"? Whatever happened to WP:DENY and blocking the trolls if they persist? Wikipedia attracts some truly terrible people, who thrive on attention and consequently love to cause drama. We have time-honoured ways of dealing with that, no arbcom ruling necessary, thank you. Arbcom is for disputes that actually have some substance that can be ruled upon. --dab (𒁳) 08:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Folantin

What the...? Wikipedia is not therapy and RFAR is not the place to host Ottava Rima's paranoid ramblings. This is only the latest of his accusations that there is some dark plot afoot. Only last month his conspiracy theory was that I was "pushing an agenda" on Persian Empire because I once joined WikiProject:Georgia [42]. The guy is a serial smear campaigner. The only thing all the parties in the "cabal" listed above have in common is that they have recently disagreed with Ottava Rima, who cannot bear to be contradicted in any way. This is also just a lame attempt by OR to dodge being sanctioned on ANI [43].

Addendum I have no idea who the "John B" Ottava refers to in his statement is: "I did not include John B, as he has this time not backed people up on various talk pages." Maybe it's John Kenney. If so, I can think of another good reason Ottava might tactfully want to omit him from the "cabal". Not so long ago, Ottava threatened to call John's university department to complain against him for disagreeing with him over the Persian Empire article [44] [45]. This threatened off-wiki harrassment led to an ANI thread in which Ottava (predictably) received no sanction from admins [46]. Apparently, because Ottava has amassed some FAs, GAs and DYKS he has carte blanche to behave how he likes around Wikipedia.

The "John Kenney" incident shows that Ottava is basically a stalker. So his opening this case is particularly ironic. The whole recent fracas only started because Ottava stalked me to the Talk:Persian Empire page with demands to have me banned because I voted against him on his failed RFA way back in April. It's obvious he was only there to troll because he doesn't have a clue about Iranian history (there's a non-exhaustive collection of his gaffes here, including the repeated claim "The 'Persian Empire' refers to a series of dynasties between 600 AD until the Ottoman Conquest. No more, no less." [47] and "The Persian Empire is not anything pre 600 AD. How can you not understand that?" [48]). I suggest the Arbs dismiss this case as nothing more than the pursuit of a vendetta.

Reply to Carcharoth

"Admins in particular have acted poorly there, and do seem to have been edit warring [on Persian Empire]." I'm not seeing any edit-warring. From the history [49], it looks like the admins who have edited the page since the dispute began around August 21 are: Wizardman (1 revert), King of Hearts (protected page), Dbachmann (1 revert), Tanthalas39 (page protection), Seddon (confirmation of page protection), Akhilleus (1 revert), Prodego (page protection). The admin with the most edits has been Nuclear Warfare (1 revert, 1 page protection plus supplementary edit). Protecting a page which you have edited to what looks like "your version" might not be the best move, but it's probably just a rookie error (NW was sysopped on August 26, I think [50]). Not seeing a case to investigate "admin edit-warring" here. As a point of comparison, Ottava Rima has reverted the page 6 times in this same period. --Folantin (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Newyorkbrad

I think your comments are very cogent. Just to note that a user has already opened a content RFC on Persian Empire (on September 27) [51]. --Folantin (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Durova

It is well known that I object to misuse of the 'prior dispute resolution' section to link to noticeboard threads: AN and ANI are not dispute resolution. That said, it would be inaccurate to characterize Ottava Rima in purely negative terms. He happens to be vying for the lead in the final round of this year's WikiCup, for example. Respectfully requesting that the Committee take at least 24 hours to consider this request; something pertinent came to my attention a while ago and I'll try to follow up. Durova320 15:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, for those who aren't familiar with the WikiCup points system this is a summary of his credits for August and September 2009.[52] This reflects promotions; some of the work was written earlier in the summer. Durova320 18:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Akhilleus

I'm trying to figure out why I'm included here, since Ottava's statement above doesn't say anything specific about me. In the recent past Ottava has accused me of meatpupptery with Folantin and others, and threatened to get me desysopped (e.g., [53], [54], [55]). But there's no evidence here, just a bunch of hand-waving. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at Ottava's response to me, and I fail to see how that constitutes evidence. I would say, however, that if the arbs accept this case, I hope that it's to review the behavior of all parties. As Ottava says in the current thread about him on ANI, alleging meatpuppetry without evidence is not civil. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to note that Ottava has reported me to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for "constantly edit warring" on Persian Empire. My one, and only one, edit to Persian Empire: [56]. Why should I still be sanctioned? Because "Akhilleus's close talk page relationship with Folantin, Dbachmann, and Alefbe show that they are part of a reverting group that avoids the definition of 3RR by taking turns." Make of that what you will, folks. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

The filing of this request seems to have been precipitated by my placement of a civility restriction on User:Ottava Rima in an attempt to control their incivility toward, and bullying of, other editors. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sanction permanent link for diffs, evidence and discussion that I shall not repeat here. Jehochman Talk 16:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are accusations that Ottava Rima harasses opponents by forum shopping and abuse of process, a Win at all costs mentality. It is surprising that several members of the committee voted to accept the case, out of normal process, because it's going to get here eventually. Why are you caving in to a disruptive editor? Arbitration is a very stressful experience for most editors. A number of people have been dragged into this matter based on what appear to be wild conspiracy theories. You have an obligation not to subject volunteers to needless stress. Now please do your damn very esteemable and respected jobs by separating the wheat from the chaff.
On admins acting poorly and edit warring, I have no direct knowledge or comment on that issue. Bad behavior by others does not excuse incivility by Ottava Rima. Perhaps as suggested below, a case about the behavior at Persian empire would make sense, but the request as currently framed is improper. Jehochman Talk 10:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ChildofMidnight

I hope this case will be declined. Editors need to attempt dispute resolution and mediation before seeking Arb enforcement. Ottava does good article work and has some legitimate complaints. But he also bears responsibility for escalating the disputes. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Bwilkins

I admire the actual article work that Ottava Rima does. I always have. However, his unique reading of what WP:NPA actually says is disturbing, as is his reaction when his reading of it is challenged. A very recent thread regarding Giano on ANI confirmed this, unfortunately. Because of this unique (and incorrect) reading, his interactions with others are problematic. Because of these interactions, he was placed under civility restrictions, and this appears to be the tit-for-tat genesis of this ArbComm request. If this request is accepted, the interactions of Ottava Rima should be a priority focus. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sandstein

My experience with Ottava Rima – as far as I can recall it right now – is limited to being a subject (among others) of his criticism in the ANI thread mentioned by Bwilkins, which is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Giano II. Leaving aside the question of whether Ottava Rima's criticism was justified or not, the manner in which he expressed it ([57], [58], [59], [60], [61]) struck me as almost comically aggressive. Given the circumstances, I am not sure that the continued disruption caused by what seems to be his battleground-like approach to many disagreements can be handled at the community level. It might be worthwhile to open a case to try and find some reasonable set of restrictions to prevent him from continuing to engage in figurative fisticuffs with those he disagrees with, while still allowing him to do the good content work that – as Durova says – he evidently does. A site ban, or comparable broad sanction, would certainly be overkill; and the Committee is better able to customize any required restrictions than a community discussion.  Sandstein  18:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Fullstop

I don't get it. The only interaction I have had with Ottava Rima is at Talk:Persian empire, where he accused me (and everyone else who disagreed with him) of being a "pov warrior", a "vandal", and in general out to destroy the 'pedia. From the other interactions between him and others on the page, and from the two AN/I links posted as "evidence of prior dispute resolution", it seems that this is his general approach to dissenting opinion.

I'm not familiar with most of the other people named in the "involved parties" list. I only know of Itsmejudith by name, and I first heard of Gwen Gale earlier this month. Jehochman and Antandrus don't ring any bells. Akhilleus and Folantin I know mostly just from their lucid comments at Talk:Persian empire, though Folantin I know somewhat better from his work on Ossetic. The only person I'm really familiar with is DBachmann, and with whom (though we respect each other) I've had my share of tangles. I've never edited the Oscar Wilde article, nor did I have anything to say at the AN/Is (indeed, I only heard of the first when it was all over, and the second I just learned of when Ottava Rima posted his notification).

Apologies if I come across as somewhat bewildered. But I'm not partial to conspiracy theories, so I'm rather floored to find that I am now supposedly part of one. From his comments at that talk page (e.g. this), I knew vaguely of Ottava Rima's theory of a cabal that was out to destroy the project. But I assumed it was polemic, and didn't realize that he earnestly believed that.

Since all the editors in the "cabal" seem to be wonderful people, I'm quite pleased to be included in their number. :) -- Fullstop (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Antandrus

This is ridiculous. I'm not part of any cabal or conspiracy. Except for supporting her RFA, and the due diligence that involved, I have had no previous contact with Itsmejudith; I have never even edited the pages Ottava is going on about (Ariosto, Persian Empire, Oscar Wilde, their respective talk pages, and I can only recall visiting the Fringe Noticeboard once, and I seem to have made only two edits, in June 2008, to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard). Gwen's block of Ottava was a good one: his bullying of Maunus – since retired – and consistent labeling of good-faith editors as "trolls" and "vandals" was well over the line of what constitutes personal attacks, let alone incivility. There is one issue here that needs study: Ottava Rima's confrontational, my-way-or-the-highway approach to editing. He tolerates no disagreement with his point of view: if he encounters any, he threatens, bullies, and behaves noxiously until he gets his way, usually by wearing out the opposition. In a collaborative environment such as ours, such behavior is poisonous. Antandrus (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Karanacs

Last year I briefly acted as a mentor for Ottava Rima when other editors had similar concerns about his behavior as some of those providing statements here. In my experience, Ottava is very passionate about the articles he edits, which can be a good thing and a bad thing.

I am not completely up-to-speed on the exact set of circumstances that led to this filing, but I think this request touches on many of the more difficult dilemmas on WP:

  • how do we handle situations where policy/guidelines may contradict the local "consensus"? This is a tricky issue when the problem may be at the noticeboard where editors would normally appeal. (I write this with no judgement whatsoever on the RSN issue listed above.)
  • how much deference should subject "experts" be given? How can we help the expert and nonexperts work constructively together?
  • where do we draw the line between civil and uncivil behavior (and what do we do about it)?
  • what do we do with a valued content editors who at times appears unable to collaborate well with others?

Karanacs (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moreschi

Ottava Rima is truly terrible. This guy is so strongly reminiscent of User:Pigsonthewing: talented people, the both of them, with an unslakeable thirst for drama and an inability to admit to being wrong, ever. Please ignore this nonsense, and send him away until next time someone snaps and we wind up with an RFAR on Ottava Rima on the charge of tendentious editing taken to extremes. Moreschi (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how about enforcing the word limit for once? Then Ottava's meaningless ramblings might not be clogging up so much of the bally page. Moreschi (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

I was going to stay out of this, but Ottava just brought up Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry#Assessment, where his second edit to the page claimed that "If thats so, then there needs to be a real freemasonry wikiproject, because this one doesn't deserve the title". He also accused long-term project members of not being "Real Masons", and After various other comments like "You inability to get over the fact that you are wrong is an impediment to Wikipedia as a whole and is very troublesome," he accuses members of "severely violating civility".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Itsmejudith

I brought the wikiquette alert and ANI that have led to this, so if there is anyone whose behaviour should be under scrutiny, it is mine. I am not acting in concert with any other users. It originated with me commenting on a source on RSN. Since then I have responded to Ottava Rima in a calm and conciliatory way, while he was accusing me of disruption and trolling, and threatening me with bans and blocks. These accusations continued during the WQA and ANI processes. He has a point about the Oscar Wilde page that is worthy of discussion and in fact I have tried to understand that point and suggest that it could be discussed further on the article talk page. But I am not part of the content dispute on that page. And I have had no dealings at all with Persian Empire. How can I prove a negative, that I am not part of a cabal? Some people have offered me advice and support on my talk page. I'm grateful, but haven't responded to them. I now remember that Folantin and I made similar arguments in relation to the dispute around Orlando Furioso, again that was in response to a question on RSN, and that was another case in which it was very hard to reason calmly with Ottava. He voted against me in my failed RfA, which was his prerogative; on that occasion too he accused me of collaboration with another editor whom I had not in fact worked with. He wasn't the only person to vote no, and I thanked him and all others who participated. Some people have said "leave Ottava alone and he will calm down". I chose not to follow that advice - on this occasion anyway - but pursued the procedures suggested in case of incivility, asking for a positive solution. Yes, he's got sensitive feelings, but so have other people too. I think it was probably going to come to a head anyway, and now this Arbitration Request will allow him space to put his side of the story and us to find an outcome that allows him to carry on editing in a collegiate way. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question to Carcaroth

And to Bishonen. Would you recommend that the Persian Empire conduct and the Oscar Wilde/RSN conduct be bundled into the same RfC or should they be taken separately? Because most people that Ottava Rima has listed as involved here have participated in one dispute or the other, but not in both. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gwen Gale

I was unaware of any ongoing dispute between Ottava and me. Either way, he hasn't undertaken any dispute resolution with me, so this seems unfounded.

However, many (but not all) editors and admins believe Ottava has often gone beyond the bounds of WP:NPA. Owing to his helpful article contributions, which are widely acknowledged, even by those who sometimes disagree with his outlooks on content and sourcing (aka PoV), so far there has been no meaningful consensus as to how this might be dealt with. Ottava does helpfully and skillfully talk about sources and how they might be cited in article text following policy, guidelines and consensus. The worry is disruption owing to his wont of going after some editors who still disagree with him after he has done this, through what some have called threats and bullying/badgering. Ottava seems to look for what he thinks are "weaknesses" in an editor's background and then follows through, not with his further outlooks on sourcing and writing, but rather with broad talk about blocks, bannings, desysoppings, along with widely put smears and name calling. Sometimes he later claims this was sarcasm. I'd think this could only be meant to make other editors back off, or at least muddle things up enough to slow them down. Coming from an otherwise highly skilled editor like Ottava, this can bring out both the best and the worst in the otherwise good faith editors who deal with him. The only reason most experienced editors put up with this is because he has a lot to do with building a wide swath of helpful articles, which indeed is the pith of en.Wikipedia. Is there a consensus that this kind of behaviour in a volunteer-driven project is ok so long as the content keeps coming through? Is it fit for the sausage factory? Is it no more than grumpiness (as one editor put it to me in an email), to be blown off? Or are there hidden harms done to the content (even articles OR has nothing to do with) when good faith editors are driven away?

I'm thinking, perhaps it would be fitting for arbcom to try and find a way to keep Ottava in the fold and give further guidance as to how WP:NPA has sway with otherwise helpful editors like him. This said, I don't think wider input has yet been gathered through other means such as an RfC, hence arbcom may not be able to guage consensus until this has happened. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Will Beback

Ottava Rima and I were on opposite sides of a dispute over the wording of a policy recently, and he immediately became hostile and started making innuendos of bad faith on my part. Since we've never had any negative interactions before that I recall, it seemed to me to be excessively personal and unhelpful. One comment was that my editing made him want to vomit[62] (he didn't seem to be joking), and another described me as a "single topic editor",[63] which is obviously false. OR's uncalled-for diatribes made participating in the discussion uncomfortable, which is why incivility like this violates Wikipedia behavior policies.   Will Beback  talk  19:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Baseball Bugs

I am only an observer to this particular dispute, not being involved in any of the articles in question. But it seems to me like there's something askew with this filing. OR wants to present it as primarily a content and sourcing dispute. But both his comments about other editors, and the reactions of those other editors, and his reactions to their reactions, make this megillah look an RfC/U disguised as a content dispute. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His official complaint has to do with Persian Empire but his real complaint seems to be "everyone is against me". There's an old saying: "Never sue; they might prove it". OR is exposing his own behavior to even broader scrutiny by filing this complaint. It's a major gamble. He might end up being vindicated; he might end up with a lengthy block; or he might find himself with a topic ban. Anything is possible. The one thing that is apparently not possible on his part is what he once told me I should do: To be forgiving of the behavior of others. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved SB_Johnny

I am also just an observer here, but as a friend of Ottava's (at least I try to be), I strongly recommend that this case be declined.

To give some background for my opinion: some weeks ago Ottava had asked me to look at something, and when I did so and !voted in a way contrary to his views, he accosted me on IRC accusing me of tag teaming (or being part of a cabal or something of that nature), in a manner that I found quite offensive.

With that background in mind, I don't find it at all surprising that many of the "named parties" are rather surprised to be named, much less associated with one another in this manner. I have no opinion on the validity of the "restriction" that seems to be the motivation for this request: if the restriction is enforced in an abusive way, then perhaps a request for arbitration might be in order.

As things stand now, perhaps the best way to move forward would be for Ottava to open an RFC/U on himself (I'll second), and invite all of these parties to comment. That would be a more appropriate way to go fishing.

Sorry, Ottava, but you need to confront your suspicions about this without the benefit of a (busy, volunteer) committee before bringing things to this level. Frankly, I think quite a few of those you're accusing are completely boggled by this move. --SB_Johnny | talk 20:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Heimstern

I'm generally all for going through the proper DR steps, as Vassyana suggests. In this case, though, the vitriol is runnning so high that I tend to think that's probably going to be pointless and that arbitration is going to be inevitable. (And yes, I know, arbitration cannot solve vitriol, either, so we're probably just screwed on this one.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explication and diffs from not very involved Bishonen

"Will someone give a brief recap", requests Thatcher, and "I am trying to figure out exactly what Ottava is asking", states Casliber. It's no wonder that they're having some trouble with this Request; I won't call Ottava's accusations crazed, but they're very strange. They come mostly in two kinds: that some of his adversaries are friends with each other, and that some of them contradict him. He offers very few diffs, and these diffs, when clicked on, do not turn out to be useful or evidentiary. I could have sworn that this, for instance, from Dbachmann's talkpage, was put in by someone else, to shame and embarrass Ottava Rima; but in reality, it's offered as evidence (of what?) by Ottava Rima. Just, as one tiny exemplifying detail, see his insistence there that 'because of he is your friend' (sic) is a perfectly grammatical expression (!) and the way he gets increasingly furious at being contradicted by a bemused Dbachmann (who happens to be a linguist). Ottava Rima is a productive editor, which is surely the only reason he's not community banned; but his unreasonable and uncollegiate rudeness and rages have poisoned the wiki experience for many, many other editors who are — or indeed were — also productive. I'm speaking from some personal experience here, but mainly I'm posting to offer ANI diffs, by way of exemplifying the scattershot range of Ottava Rima's anger and rudeness. (The list is what I found; I'm sure it's incomplete.)Vassyana, I dare you to read through the ANI threads below and come out on the other side (covered in rotten egg, and with the weeping of the people who have tried to discuss cordially with Ottava Rima sounding in your ears) and to be still recommending "cordial discussion".

  • April 2008 (another one): [65]

On the other hand, as Vassyana points out, attempts at dispute resolution are not optional as prerequisites to arbitration. I have to agree with Heimstern Läufer that such attempts are in this case overwhelmingly likely to turn out mere formalities; yet, no doubt, an RfC should be done. This is my advice: request comments, and if (or, frankly, when) that goes nowhere, request arbitration. Yes, I do know RfC's are terrible timesinks, and this one would likely be worse than usual; but, people, do think of the time wasted, by so many people, in the ANI threads above, and on all those talkpages that Ottava Rima makes a practice of blighting. And think of all the disappointed, saddened, editors who lose their momentum and their wiki-pleasure in trying to deal with Ottava Rima. Once there is an RfC, surely the arbcom cannot and will not decline to arbitrate. Bishonen | talk 22:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

  • Reply to Itsmejudith's question about RfC. My advice is to request comment on User:Ottava Rima, and on whether or not he conducts himself in an acceptable manner. There are many cases relevant to that question — by no means only the two cases you mention — see the ANI diffs in my post. Bishonen | talk 10:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by not-currently-appearing-in-this-drama KillerChihuahua

Ottava seems to place people he encounters in two categories; those he currently has no dispute with, and Horribly Evil and Worthy of Continued Attacks and Badgering, Smears and Hostility, herinafter "Bad guys". I was formerly a Good guy, then suddenly became a Bad guy when I banned him from further participation in a specific Rfa, where he had made IIRC about 40-50 combative posts. This was brought to my attention in an ANI thread, and I posted my solution there and per usual practice asked if there were any dissenters. There were none. Ottava took the war to various talk pages, another ANI thread ensued, for some considerable time (months) afterward took every opportunity to smear and attack me. He recently offered an olive branch and I accepted - I have no grudges to bear anyone. That may be over, now that I've posted here. Here's the thing, tho: OR seems to really, truly not "get" that its not ok to continue a dispute past its expiration date. Once that ANI thread was archived and the Rfa was over, it was Past Tense. OR has a habit of taking any such disagreement to other venues, across other subjects, etc. He seems incapable of remaining civil once he's had such a disagreement; he bears grudges. I don't know that ArbCom can help. And yes, his content contributions are outstanding; he's very valuable there. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
Will someone give a brief recap of the background and current events, please. Not everyone keeps abreast of the admin noticeboards on an hourly basis. Thatcher 15:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Accept Comment there have been some occasions where Ottava has been able to work out differences, and has has been correct on occasions with ensuring enwiki material correlates with the sourcing. I am trying to figure out exactly what Ottava is asking. My impression would be to decline an all-encompassing case which I get the gist of in the statement, in favour of mediation of some sort. And all the boards need more eyes. Agree that I doubt this will go anywhere fast unless we deal with it now. Also, allegations of admin misconduct have been raised, and so the admins need to be exonerated or otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. There are many dispute resolution options remaining untouched with the potential to resolve this situation. Vassyana (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to Ottava Rima, there seems to be a lot of heated debate, accusations, and related modes of speech flying around. Removal of administrator permissions is not the only avenue or possibility for this dispute. Step one of dispute resolution is cordial discussion. If that fails, asking for a bit of help with communication to keep things calm and non-aggressive can be very helpful, such as by asking for a volunteer from MedCab. If worse comes to worse, requesting comment about user conduct can help provide feedback from the broader community. These opportunities for resolution, or equivalent attempts are dispute resolution, are not optional as prequisites to arbitration. I must decline this request in the absence of indications that such avenues would be completely fruitless, that misconduct taking place is particularly severe or disruptive, or that the disagreement is beyond the resources of the community to resolve. Vassyana (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept This issue is going to come to us either now or later because I see absolutely no chance that the situation will be resolved without a ruling from ArbCom. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept per Flo. There are issues here that need looked at. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline in favour of a user conduct RfC on Ottava Rima's approach to handling such issues, with the proviso that the opening statement in such an RfC be kept short (too many such RfCs recently have been far too long - a laundry list of complaints - pick the most egregious and recent examples and keep the RfC focused), and, this is crucial, allow Ottava Rima a reasonable chance to make a statement before others comment on the RfC. The tendency for people to pile-on in support of an opening statement before any countering statement has been made, is a large part of the reason for the failure of some recent user conduct RfCs. A balanced set of views from all sides needs to be laid out before any RfC starts. In respect of the Persian Empire dispute that was one of the triggers for this, I think that has been poorly handled by all sides. Admins in particular have acted poorly there, and do seem to have been edit warring. If that was made clear with diffs, I would consider accepting a separate request based on that dispute alone. Carcharoth (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept; I doubt an RFC is likely to achieve much more than render the problem more venomous. — Coren (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse, in case I remove my inactivity in the near future. Took a side on the content for a little while. Wizardman 17:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Although we do not expect parties to prove their cases at the accept-or-decline stage, the filing party is required to provide some evidence that there is a specific issue requiring arbitration. After careful review, I find Ottava Rima's suggestion that the various administrators are engaged in some sort of cabal or implicit conspiracy against him to be completely unpersuasive. It is much more likely that a case, if accepted, would turn its attention to Ottava Rima himself, but I hope that matters need not come to that. Ottava Rima needs to carefully consider the emerging consensus that his style of on-wiki communication is largely responsible for the criticism he receives. Strength of conviction, on-wiki as in life, is often a virtue, but (as I believe I once mentioned to him informally off-wiki), rarely have I encountered someone who feels so consistently that there is one and only one side, one and only one acceptable answer, to any and every issue, and that if a point is worth making once, it is worth making a dozen times, very often in increasingly strident tones. (The style reminds me very much of—but I shouldn't finish that sentence.) Ottava Rima is at risk of having his contributions to content, which are widely respected, outweighed in the minds of his editing colleagues by the issues surrounding his communications style, and that would be regrettable for all concerned; he should moderate his tone in future discussions, beginning immediately, to avoid such an outcome. As for the merits of the Persian Empire article, I defer to those with subject-matter expertise; I agree that a content RfC, devoid of personal remarks and rhetoric, might be in order (and now learn, from Folantin's comment above, that one has been opened). Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Law's unblock of ChildofMidnight

Initiated by  Sandstein  at 07:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

This is a divisive dispute between admins; previous discussion is found at

Statement by Sandstein

By a motion of 29 August 2009 modifying Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Remedies, ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was "topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, and any related discussions, broadly construed across all namespaces". He and Wikidemon (talk · contribs) had already been ordered "not to interact with each other" on 21 June 2009.

Today, Wikidemon submitted Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#ChildofMidnight. I usually patrol WP:AE, and after reading the evidence in the request and ChildofMidnight's reply, I blocked ChildofMidnight for a month, both for his repeated violation of the topic ban and for his violation of the interaction remedy through his reply. (It was later pointed out to me that I misread the remedy and that the maximum block length should have been a week; apologies for this.)

ChildofMidnight submitted an unblock request (including [73], [74]) that in my experience would normally not have been accepted based on its incivil language alone. At 03:51, 20 September 2009, Law (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), an administrator, informed me that he would unblock ChildofMidnight, and without either waiting for my reply or engaging in any community discussion he unblocked ChildofMidnight at 04:15. He later declined to reinstate the block (at its proper length of one week), which leads me to request arbitration (instead of wheelwarring, of course).

A very brief review of Law's contributions indicates that he and ChildofMidnight have recently interacted in a quite familiar manner ([75], [76] [77], [78]). This, as well as the remarkably short time (24 minutes) between the unblock request and Law's reaction, may be an indication that Law might not have been acting as a neutral, uninvolved administrator in the processing of ChildofMidnight's unblock request.

By unilaterally undoing a block that was clearly labeled as an arbitration enforcement action, as well as more generally by undoing a block by a fellow admin without consulting anybody, Law has acted in a manner unbecoming an administrator and I ask the Committee to take the steps required to ensure that its decisions can be effectively enforced in the future. Should the Committee decline to do so, I regret to say that I will no longer undertake any arbitration enforcement tasks, because that would then be an exercise in futility.  Sandstein  07:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Law
So far, all of Law's comments in this matter ignore that my block was explicitly not only for ChildofMidnight's violation of the topic ban (for about the third time), but equally for his violation of the restriction against interaction with Wikidemon that his offtopic ad-hominem tirade constituted. Also, Law misstates my request. I do not consider AE futile if I do not get my way (about whether the topic ban was violated; I'll of course accept any consensual determination of that issue), but I do consider it futile if it becomes accepted practice to unilaterally undo arbitration enforcement actions without discussion.  Sandstein  09:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should the Committee decline to do so, I regret to say that I will no longer undertake any arbitration enforcement tasks, because that would then be an exercise in futility. That is the equivalent of taking your ball and going home. There is not other way to interpret this remark. If you take an issue as far as ARBCOM, you need to be prepared that you may not have been in the right here and it has nothing to do with an ARBCOM decision. I will engage you no further. You clearly do not see that I await a decision, respect that decision, and whichever way the wind flows, I will abide. I suggest you do the same. Law type! snype? 09:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Ched
I think it is fallacious to assume that an article is only related to Barack Obama if it is mentioned in the presumably comprehensive article about him. Per WP:SS, much relevant material will be only mentioned in the subarticles (if at all). For instance, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, while undoubtedly related to Obama, are not mentioned at all in the article about him. At any rate, ACORN#ACORN in political discourse, which mentions Obama multiple times, explains why the organization is politically relevant to him and certainly falls into a broadly construed topic ban concerning him.  Sandstein  09:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding the statement by ChildOfMidnight
ChildOfMidnight has made a statement of sorts at User talk:ChildofMidnight#Arbitration request (permalink, my attempt to copy it to this page was reverted). The one part in the statement that merits comment is ChildOfMidnight's reference to the article Contempt of cop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which I started in July (most probably marking the first time that I started an article about the U.S.). ChildOfMidnight made several changes to the article, apparently ascribing some political motivation to my version of it (while, in fact, being Swiss, I have not much of an opinion about most aspects of US politics). His changes have, as far as I can tell, by now been undone, mostly by other editors. Up until this evening I had forgotten both about the article and the fact that he, too, had edited it. Even now, on reflection, I do not believe that this no-longer-current content disagreement in a different topic area makes me involved with respect to him, though I will of course respect any other determination by the Committee.  Sandstein  19:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued unbecoming conduct by Law

Since Law lifted his block, ChildOfMidnight has made various statements on his user talk page that violate most of our user conduct policies ([79], [80], [81], [82], [83]). Instead of reacting to this in a manner compatible with his assumed role of neutral administrator, Law left a light-hearted comment on ChildOfMidnight's talk page ([84]), which makes fun of the arbitration remedy I attempted to enforce, has the effect of validating ChildOfMidnight's violation of the remedy and other norms of conduct, and reinforces my impression that Law's administrator actions in this matter are not based in a good faith disagreement over whether or not my enforcement action was correct.  Sandstein  08:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a comment in relation to Bongomatic's 'block notice.' It had nothing to do with CoM's comments. Am I poking fun at how you blatantly blocked the user for a time period that was against policy? No. Am I making light of the fact that I disagree with the Arbs below - none of which said the time was problematic? Yes. You seem to be confused. I don't disagree with the topic ban - I disagree that it was correctly applied in this case. I also used a little levity to de-escalate the situation, which you seem quite intent on bringing to full climax. Law type! snype? 08:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding Vassyana's "decline" vote
Vassyana, thanks for your and your colleagues' confirmation that the unblock was incorrect, but that's not what I came here for. I could have gone to WP:ANI for that, but my point in requesting arbitration is to find out whether such a new community discussion is indeed needed every time an arbitral sanction needs enforcement. I believe it ought not to be. I believe that it is required to maintain the Committee's effectiveness as a dispute settlement body to either sanction Law or at least to clearly state, by motion, that any administrator undoing arbitration enforcement actions, without support by the Committee or very clear community consensus, will be subject to sanctions including desysopping. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I would like to draw the Committee's attention to Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Appeal of discretionary sanctions (2007), where you ordered: "Administrators are cautioned not to reverse [discretionary] sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations." In several other decisions, you used similar language. If you do not enforce it now, you may substantially diminish the effectiveness and binding nature of your decisions (which would be bad, because we do need an effective ArbCom).  Sandstein  16:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding the disposition of this request
The request for sanctions against Law is clearly moot following his desysopping and block for other reasons, and accordingly, I've struck much of the above. I would appreciate it, however, if the Committee were to dispose of this request in such a fashion as to make it clear that they will desysop or substantially sanction any admin who similarly disrupts arbitration enforcement, for the reasons given above. If that is not the Committee's intent, then I'm not ready to continue helping it enforcing its decisions, sorry.  Sandstein  19:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tznkai

This is not nearly ripe enough for arbitration yet, but if it gets there, I hope it ends with someone whacking me upside the head for trying to put out this fire.--Tznkai (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my best efforts, Law and Sandstein seem committed to arbitration. I remind ArbCom of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Motion to clarify the interpretative role of administrators, and of WP:AERFC which had, among other things, many comments about how AE is understaffed and a flawed process. As I am now pretty much done with trying to put out the fire, I just like to note that administrators need to avoid having pissing contests. In fact, they need to do more than that, they need to actively work together or the entire effort is pointless. I am not sure yet what ArbCom can do about getting that to happen, if anything, but I think it is at the core of the dispute here - not any of the red herrings listed.--Tznkai (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On blocking CoM again: we're either rapidly approaching or have already passed the point where the issue of questionable edits is "stale." A possibility is to block for 1 second, instead of continuing the week, with a suitable edit summary (Arbitration enforcement: Editor violated topic ban, reduced because of stale report) with a link to this decision. If CoM is to be reblocked for the appropriate duration, I would like that done by motion.--Tznkai (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Law

I believe I am uninvolved by virtue of the fact that I have never dealt with CoM as it pertains to his editing restrictions. I do not see how 'uninvolved' means that I am not allowed any interaction with the editor. If this were true, I would have little to offer as far as administrative actions as I have several editors with which I have interacted.

Editors are the ones who add and build articles. So I do not interpret the topic ban to mean that if editor or IP X inserts Obama's name to article X, that CoM is systematically obligated to stay away from that article. As I mentioned, it is no secret that Obama recently referred to Kanye West as a 'jackass.' However, I do not feel that CoM should be restricted from improving the Kanye article.

Editing Michelle Obama is problematic. Editing Kayne West is not. ACORN was incorporated nearly 40 years before the highest profile person in the world was voted into office. It is only by virtue of the fact that Obama is the US President, that one could possibly perceive that this article should be off limits to said editor. I refuse to believe that ARBCOM intended that any mention of the President of the United States in any capacity, in any article, automatically merits a block. The ban was intended to prevent CoM from editing Obama-related articles. I do not think that ACORN is an Obama-related article simply because information was added to the article that mentions the standing President.

Sandstein's assertion that if things do not go his way he will consider ARBCOM an exercise in futility is also very disconcerting. I'm clearly willing to abide by any decision is made - I just feel that until that decision is made, the user should remain unblocked.

Statement by SirFozzie

In general, it's long standing "law" that a topic ban is meant to prevent someone from editing in a topic area where there's an issue with that person's editing. In other words, it's what they're editing about that's the issue, not the name of the article.

Looking at the edits referred to on AE, on the article of Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. This is a highly charged subject, where attacks on one could meant as an indirect attack on someone else (IE, casting ACORN in bad light, hoping that the bad light will reflect badly on Barack Obama). So, while it's borderline, I would be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to CoM, and thus consider the edits to be NOT a violation of the topic ban.

However, I'd like to note with concern this edit, amongst others mentioned on the AE thread which indicates that CoM is treating WP and these articles as a battleground. Obviously, the lesson has not been learned here, and if not corrected in the near future by CoM, I would recommend that the existing topic ban be expanded to include all political related articles.

As for the unblock by User:Law.. while, as I've said that I'd be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to CoM with regards to this, I do not think Law's actions were warranted and/or helpful in this area. Unilaterally undoing another administrator's action without discussion or consultation does nothing to help an already heated enviroment. It was in a grey area, and Law should have discussed it with others on AE or elsewhere before undoing Sandstein's actions. Perhaps it's time to take a look at the perennial proposal of changing the definition of WP:WHEEL from the current: DO/UNDO/REDO (where it's the third action) to a more realistic and simple "Undoing another administrator's action without discussion and/or consultation." SirFozzie (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing further statements and CoM's on words, I am no longer willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Good block, and I urge ArbCom to not only ratify the block placed by Sandstein (the one week one, not the initial month), but urge them to place a political topic ban on CoM. I stand by my thoughts that Law's action was neither warranted or helpful. SirFozzie (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Suggestion for motion

Since ArbCom have dropped back a bit on this one, may I suggest the following motion?

The Arbitration Committee has reviewed the initial block by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) of ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and found the rationale valid. Sandstein did block for a time period not allowed by the arbitration remedy, however, he would have quickly corrected himself when this was pointed out to him, except he was overtaken by external events

Law (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s unblock of ChildofMidnight without discussion or consensus was not supported by policy, and he is admonished that another such incident may result in his administrative tools being revoked.

All administrators are reminded of the header of the ArbCom Enforcement page which states:

In November 2008, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Motion:_re_SlimVirgin#Restriction_on_arbitration_enforcement_activity) which stated that administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except

* with the written authorization of the Committee, or * following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so.

This should wrap it up nicely. SirFozzie (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I may briefly comment here, I think this would be a sensible way to proceed. Thanks!  Sandstein  11:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is factually inaccurate. Please see Sandstein's block log. You will see there is no reduction of the block length. It may be the case that Sandstein would have amended the time period had the block not been lifted by another administrator, but it is not the case that he did. Bongomatic 11:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(I've moved Bongomatic statement down here, to keep the "motion" clean, and I have edited that section.) SirFozzie (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ched Davis

I request permission to make a comment in regards to this matter. Without prejudice to any party involved, as I do have the utmost respect for all editors mentioned here, I would like to address the issue of the "topic ban". I believe that the Obama related articles (broadly construed) needs to considered in any decisions made in this particular case, and would like to ask that the committee consider a couple points.

  1. That the Barack Obama article is a Featured Article
  2. Criteria for a featured article 1 (b) states:
    (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
  3. In doing a search through the Barack Obama article, I was unable to find either the term "ACORN", or "Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now" listed anywhere in the article.

I truly believe that consideration should be given to these facts. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  09:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Sandstein
Thank you for both the reply and the links. I must confess that even though I've been active in the US Political area since the Jimmy Carter era (IIRC the 1976 election, although it's possible that the 1980 election was my first), I am very ignorant of much in the Wikipedia area of politics. I am even more ignorant of ArbCom procedure, and intent. As such, I often struggle with the concept of Wikipedia:Assume clue vs. Wikipedia:Assume no clue. When confronted with these conundrums, I attempt to WP:AGF, and trust that all parties involved are here to improve the WP project. I am aware that CoM has been involved in some contentious topics and threads, but I believe that any editor frequenting these difficult areas (US Politics) will often become a high profile editor who's actions are under extreme scrutiny. I have noticed that while CoM does have a block log, that many of the items are adjustments, retractions, or modifications to the original blocks. This indicates to me that perhaps there are misunderstandings and over-reactions to editors who frequent the US Political venues. I know that when editors are brought before any type of judgmental venue, such as AN, ANI, or ArbCom, that often the final declarations can be harsh. I believe that the root of the problem is the deep political divide between the US political right (conservative), and the US political left (liberal), and I can not fathom a simple solution to such an expansive problem. I think it is very unfortunate when administrators find themselves at such odds with one another, as it sets a bad example for the rest of the community. By construct, administrators should have within their wherewithal to resolve the inevitable disagreements peacefully, rationally, amicably, and without rancor. My original comment was merely an attempt to point out that while one person may interpret an ArbCom sanction in one fashion, I believe that it's entirely feasible that another person may interpret the exact same wording in a completely different manner. It's my opinion that when this happens, we better serve the project and the community by limiting our sanctions to the least restrictive options; at least until the matter(s) have been discussed, and some sort of consensus has been reached. I thank the committee for it's time and use of their page(s), and I wish all the very best. — Ched :  ?  11:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question
I am curious, and want to make sure that I understand the actual details on this; is this the edit that drew a month long block? — Ched :  ?  19:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MickMacNee

To Ched: You will not find a single mention of the birther controversy article in the text of the Obama article either, which nullifies that analysis. MickMacNee (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

This type of request does not surprise me as parties can say and do things hastily in the heat of the moment. However, though it may be humanly impossible for some parties to work together, I have no doubts that these 2 can work well together. In such circumstances, it is definitely not pleasant to see two such constructive established users (administrators in this case) listed as two opposing parties in a RfArb which could be so easily resolved outside of arbitration-pages - if both parties were ready to give a little more and take a little more. I think a case or motion will lead them astray and simply exacerbate the core problem. They both need to be led to the right path. Perhaps a more useful outcome would arise if even a couple of arbitrators talked to them informally so that they come to an understanding.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for ChildofMidnight and Wikidemon, I think adopting Carcharoth's proposal would be useful for that issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any responses to Lara's point below...even ignoring typical community practice, the block itself did not comply with the enforcement provision which was imposed by the same ArbCom who are nodding their heads now. It's a worry that about half of ChildofMidnight's block log consists of actions that are problematic or unjustified in some way or another; and perhaps the worst part is that it looks like the beginning of a horrible trend. Instead of acknowledging this problem after looking at everything properly, you'll continue to nod your heads? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Vassyana
  • Sandstein's apology mooted part of my concern in that he partially took responsibility for his error. But the value of any 1 administrator's apology is not great enough to remedy the harm done to CoM's block log (which looks more and more like a train wreck with time) - by this I mean the sheer accumulated number of admin actions which are problematic, unjustified or similar, that have been recorded in CoM's block log. In such circumstances, it's not difficult to understand why a person in CoM's shoes would develop and express such strong views against groups of users (be it administrators, arbitrators, or otherwise) - this leads to further problems.
  • What is lacking here is a remedy to that issue; at minimum, the community or ArbCom acknowledging this problem, so that more care is taken when actions are made with respect to CoM. Would Law have acted in the same way he did if Sandstein did not add to this growing problem? Has Law learnt from it? Sandstein's mistake may have been easier to fix in some other case, but would Sandstein have responded in the same way (inc. by filing this request) if he truly appreciated the harm that was caused by his mistake in this case? Or would he have been more ready to settle this through other means? Has Sandstein learnt from it? Contributing to another editor's bad perceptions does not help any situation, even if it is done unconsciously, and some users are not giving this enough thought.
  • If there is to be any chance of resolving this dispute without drawing further battle-lines amongst other editors (or admins), more weight needs to be given to these considerations - all arbitrators nodding on any one side will not help. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tarc

  • Certainly didn't expect to see this in RFAR this morning. IMO these wiki-restraining orders are a bad idea and a hassle to enforce, but if we're going to stick with them as an enforceable remedy, then allowances must be made for one party to seek redress when the other violates it, just like their real-life counterpart. IRL, the victim doesn't wait for the cops to drive by and happen to see the violator in the front yard. Assigning admins to speak for them seems like a bureaucratic nightmare and just adds another layer of mess to go through, and I've never like the idea of off-wiki discussion of on-wiki issues; all of this should be as transparent as can be. Neither parties should be sanctioned under the "no contact" for filing and responding to the filing, respectively. Yes, I feel CoM was entitled to a response, but the response itself is problematic (accusations of stalking/harassment, name-dropping me, general tirade against The Man Keeping Him Down).
  • The unblock by Law was questionable, to put it mildly. An admin motivated enough to unretire to take care of a blocked user that he has past friendly relations with (linked in Sandstein's section), to override another admin's interpretation of an ArbCom sanction, and to unblock when the unblock request and follow-up are laced with invective, personal attacks, and the usual "everyone's fault but mine" shtick? That just doesn't add up, along with the fact that this is now about the 4th or 5th time CoM has violated the ArbCom restrictions.
  • Finally, no one has said that any article that mentions Obama by name is under the ArbCom restriction; I'd really like to see this canard put to rest, as even admins seem to be using it with abandon. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: Interesting to see admins adding fuel to the idea that editing sanctions are a source of ridicule. Tarc (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

I think that a block over editing the ACORN article is reidiculous. Right now every law and bill will be slightly Obama related. Christ he's our President. I think the limits need to be defined as to what is exactly Obama related. I personally think both admin were acting from good faith. I do not think that a block should come out of the ACORN edits. At most if consensus is such that it is a prohibited area Tell COM. Just because he is in Arbcom doesn't mean it excuses us from assuming good faith, it does make out rope a little shorter but there was something everyone saw in COM or he would've been banned not subject restricted. A clear and definitive definition of what's allowed will prevent such misunderstandings. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

I am not an admin, and have followed the large collection of ArbCom rulings against CoM only vaguely. I have encountered CoM's disruptive editing practices in several places, including recently ACORN which prompted this, so am concerned about the unblock.

Law's ill-conceived unblock has the extremely harmful effect of trivializing ArbCom rulings. Moreover, we are now in the awkward situation of giving CoM a "free pass" on any bad behavior for the near future. If CoM engages in contentious edit warring, belligerent comments, or other violations that have frequently characterized his editing, no admin can block him without engaging in wheel warring. Emboldening disruption is a really bad idea, all the more so for an editor with many preexisting sanctions.

The only right thing here would be if Law would voluntarily reinstate the CoM block, though for the one week given in prior ArbCom rulings, rather than the one month that Sandstein has recognized as a misreading. Unfortunately, it appears Law has become more engaged in vindicating his position out of ego than in promoting the clear operation of arbitration rulings. LotLE×talk 17:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Protonk

A few short points, back with more later:

  1. Stating that Obama is related to ACORN only by virtue of his presidency is so far from the facts on the ground as to almost be deceptive. More evidence from some reliable sources on that later (I won't belabor the point but this is decidedly not like editing Skip Gates's article, it is much more closely connected)
  2. AE is chronically understaffed partially because it is thankless complicated work (I'll note here that I don't have a single edit to AE and promised myself that I would steer clear of most permanently arbitrated disputes like Eastern Europe, Ireland, US Left-Right politics, etc.). But it is also understaffed because stuff like this happens all the time. One admin undertakes an Arb. Enforcement only to find his action reversed rendering the entire process moot. If Sandstein wanted to re-block CoM he would have to go to AN or AN/I and get a consensus there that the unblock was wrong, bringing back all the problems which brought the case to arbitration in the first place. Bringing enforcement of an action to the community where the enforcement itself is only in place because the community can't litigate the debate is nuts.
  3. This is yet another example of the implicit problem generated by WHEEL's prohibition of the "third action". A second mover advantage is generated. The admin with real power here is the unblocking admin because it is their action which is irrevocable, not the first admin's. I'm not arguing that either admin's actions should be totally immovable or transient but there shouldn't be a big imbalance between the two. Both the blocking admin and the unblocking admin should be forced to think about their actions in light of possible consequences.

Some supporting evidence to come, probably tomorrow. Protonk (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some sourcing noting the alleged connection between ACORN/Obama

  • The connection between ACORN and Obama is something of an article of faith for the American right. This Bill O'Reilly segment immediately following the most recent scandal offers a clue to the rationale (scroll down to the part right after "Over at NBC they are actually making excuses for ACORN"). A portion of the 'fight the smears' website is dedicated to ACORN allegations. The NRO offered an early set of allegations here. John McCain brought it up in the debates. Etc. I don't know that the factual nature of the connection is very important to our discussion, the perception of it for the american right is. Prior to the election the allegation was that ACORN would rig the election in favor of obama. After the election the allegation shifted to more inchoate targets, including claims that ACORN would rig census results on Obama's behalf, etc.. I don't want to belabor the point, but the articles are connected. If the committee intends to settle this by motion (if they intervene at all), the motion should not be to clarify that the ban extends piecemeal to ACORN, unless you want to be back here again when another allied article under the topic ban is brought up. Protonk (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xenophrenic

On the question of "is ACORN broadly construed as an Obama-related article?", there is a relevant bit of information overlooked by some administrators. CoM's first edit on the ACORN talk page since his topic ban makes clear that his interest lies with just one specific part of the article: ACORN is a partisan organization. It's simply innacurate to state otherwise. They have parts that are non-partisan so as to be compliant with funding requirements, but other segments are very active politically and in endorsing and campaigning for Democratic candidates. ACORN has endorsed only one presidential candidate, Barack Obama, and ChildofMidnight argues that makes ACORN partisan. While Admin Law argues that the relationship between Obama and ACORN is minimal, it is precisely that relationship, IMO, however significant, CoM targeted with his edits. If Law's only justification for lifting the block is that the topic ban doesn't cover edits to the ACORN article, I believe Law was in error. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe even CoM considers ACORN to be related to the Obama articles. In response to an editor on the ACORN talk page loudly proclaiming that the ACORN article was biased, and guarded by like-minded biased editors, CoM responded here:

"Censorship is quite common on Wikipedia. A pack of partisans hangs out on the Obama articles and related subjects and tries to keep out all notable dissent. It's pretty saddening and there's an Arbcom proceeding dealing with it. Believe it or not they're siding with those violating the wp:NPOV guideline. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Did CoM just infer that the ACORN article was a related subject, or am I misreading? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wikidemon

This is in answer to answer Carcharoth's request[85] to weigh in on the proposal that any petition by me relating to ChildofMidnight be either emailed to the committee or conveyed by an administrator-advocate. This is not directed to the propriety of ChildofMidnight's block, or subsequent unblock.

Is there a problem problem that needs fixing, and that can be resolved by placing an intermediary between me and ArbCom? ArbCom is my first and last stop to resolve problems with CoM, because every other venue is precluded by our mutual no-interaction rule. As a threshold for my requests, if CoM is engaging in ArbCom sanction violations via (a) blockable conduct that (b) impairs my ability to edit articles, he should stop. Also: if (c) the behavior continues and nobody is dealing with it after a reasonable time, I should have some forum to request help. If anyone disagrees and thinks my work should be stymied or all recourse denied, let them say so. I have not been told otherwise, so I filed four requests on that premise, two for clarification and two for enforcement. They resulted one way or another in two blocks of CoM, and two warnings that he would be blocked if he continued. Diffs are in the collapsed section, below.

please review these diffs in this collapsed section to see the history of my post-case participation in ArbCom
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • I filed a first request for clarification 26 June 2009, asking if these edits[86][87][88][89] were okay. Arbitrators opined: "...any further (even mildly) negative ad hominem comments or niggly/baiting/whatever that occur could be at best described as disruptive and a significant block would be in order."[90] and "No. It is not acceptable".[91] Three more arbs concurred, none disagreed. This was not recorded as a formal ruling.
  • Sceptre filed a first request for amendment 9 July 2009, seeking for various 1RR restrctions to be limited to Obama-related articles. I commented only briefly. The proposal was approved 6-1-0-3.
  • Bigtimepeace filed a second request for clarification 5 August 2009, inquiring about the timing of topic bans. I asked a related question. There was some discussion among arbitrators but no motion or ruling.
  • I filed a third request for clarification (deleted without archiving)[92] on 8 August 2009 after CoM intervened in an AN/I thread where I was participating to co criticize the community's attempt to cope with William S. Saturn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was edit warring and making accusations at the Obama article[93][94][95][96] and egged him on at his own talk page.[[97]] There were other sanction violations that affected me less directly.[98][99][100][101][102] I had been participating on the article page and at AN/I but to avoid interacting with CoM I closed down my part of a thread when he appeared.[103] I asked ArbCom to clarify three questions: (parahrased for brevity) may interaction-banned editors criticize each other, participate in meta-matters related to the others' edits, or accuse a group of editors that includes the other of bad faith; and may topic-banned editors participate in meta-discussion of the prohibited content or article edits, or AfDs of topic-banned articles? CoM was blocked briefly, then unblocked, and ArbCom reworded the topic ban by 6-0-0-1 motion to include all namespaces.
  • I responded to Grundle2600's [request for clarification] of the reworded topic ban, to argue that user talk pages should remain within the ban. Shortly thereafter CoM posted picture of Hitler on his talk page, with captions and commentary comparing began comparing Obama editors / case participants to Nazis.[104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120] I filed a first request for enforcement over the Nazi content after Risker seemed to say that is where the matter belonged.[121] by User:Risker. I said I would file the request and, with no response, I did so eight hours later. Questions were raised by some, but never clarified by Arbcom, whether it was appropriate for me to comment on CoM before ArbCom. The outcome was stern warnings from administrators to remove the Nazi material, after which CoM did so and the matter became moot.
  • On the current case (diffs in AE report), my issue is not content at all. I had created create a new article, Nonpartisan (American organizations), and encouraged editors to clearly distinguish between the common usage of "nonpartisan" and the technical tax/legal designation. That, potentially, could clear up years of dispute over many articles about politically-active American nonprofit organizations. And then I made this edit for further clarification.[122] My issue is that CoM jumped in to dispute a section I was working on that arose from the 2008 election, and began making edits and accusations that forced me to choose between quitting my efforts or seeking help here. He was busy claiming bad faith, and claims again here that it was a content dispute, but I do not think he noticed that my content position actually agrees with his.

Regarding why I felt each report was justified at the time:

(a) disruptive conduct - Only when behavior causes real trouble is it worth dealing with. Accidents, missteps, good work, and pleasant civil behavior, are not worth worrying about. Each of my requests concerned conduct disruptive enough to be blockable. In order of the four reports: (1) badmouthing me and other editors by name across the encyclopedia by calling us vandals, trolls, POV pushers, etc., (ii) inciting a difficult editor at AN/I to edit war the Obama page, (iii) hosting Nazi imagery by way of likening me and other editors to Hitler, and (iv) accusations of bad faith at Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now‎ (ACORN). In the first and third cases, CoM was warned by administrators or arbitrators that he would be blocked if he continued, and he eventually backed down. In the second and fourth cases, he was blocked.
(b) impairs my editing - I take no interest in ChildofMidnight's editing except where it affects me. In each case it affected my ability to edit the encyclopedia. Again in order he: (i) besmirched my name, (ii) scuttled my attempts to work with an editor and left his fingerprints on an AN/I thread I started, so I had to withdraw my comments and flee, (iii) made me the target of hate speech, and (iv) spoiled an accord I was proposing at ACORN, and made me back off my edits there.
(c) not yet reported - It's simpler if someone else happens to notice and deal with CoM. That does not always happen.

So far so good. But...

Each request brought a fresh round of accusations by CoM against me, other editors, and involved arbitrators and administrators, and both blocks were quickly overturned, leading to administrator disputes. Looking first at the accusations, ChildofMidnight called us all things like POV-pusher, troll, vandal, disruptive editor, policy violator, Nazi, thug, bully, liar, stalker, censor, harasser, abuser, obscene, disgusting, disgraceful, shameful, incompetent, bullshit (see diffs above). Stripping away the epithets, CoM says that there is a cabal, and sometimes implies that I am at the front of it. He imagines I and others are stalking him, harassing him, persecuting him over a content dispute. He even says at WP:AE that I am deranged and his personal safety may be at risk. I can see why people assume from that, and from my having policed his edits on the Obama articles, that there is some bad blood specifically between the two of us. But if you look at the history CoM makes the same accusations of anyone who ever warns or blocks him, and many who merely disagree or come too close. Many of your talk pages now have abuse from CoM worse than any aimed at me. And in my history, I've dealt with dozens of difficult editors. It's not me, and it's not him. It is how CoM communicates when he does not get his way.

Regarding the two blocks, the first was reversed not because the behavior was acceptable, but because in the view of some not in a namespace covered by the sanctions. ArbCom reworded the sanction in response to say it did apply to all namespaces. If the same edits happened today they would be a clear violation. The second block is endorsed here. CoM was not snared on a technicality, or unjustly impugned; he got off on two technicalities, when admins reversed each other. Admins have different opinions on what to do so they undo each other's blocks. I don't see how adding an intermediary would change either, or CoM's inconvenience at being the subject of a wheel war. ArbCom is already an intermediary, standing between disputing editors. Do we need a second layer between parties and ArbCom? If a report arises from by email or user talk page instead of WP:AE, will CoM's protest any less? Will Admins' blocks be any more stable? I hope ArbCom, and the administrators around here, can keep the ship in order without delegating that role. I just don't see how an extra layer helps anything.

Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC) (updated, 00:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Jennavecia

If the original block had been for a week, we probably wouldn't have seen an unblock. Instead, we saw an edit of a month over a grammatical improvement to prose in an article that mentioned Obama. 5 Arbs agreeing that was spot-on. Awesome. But no. A month for that? Please. Reblock for a week from the time of the original block. Problem solved. Straight to ArbCom? Cut the drama, we've got more important things to deal with. Lara 03:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bigtimepeace

First, Xenophrenic puts it well above. As anyone who follows American politics closely knows, ACORN and Obama are clearly related topics. The final weeks of the presidential campaign last year were full of stories about supposed improprieties by ACORN on behalf of Obama and the Democrats—a meme that was actively pushed by the McCain/Palin campaign. This wasn't a trivial little one-off story, it was big, big news; and suggesting that ACORN (whose article has a whole section on the 2008 presidential campaign) does not, "broadly construed", relate to Obama is simply not accurate. Even today, the "ACORN and Obama in cahoots" meme is a big deal to many American conservatives, and the supposed connection between the two partially explains why Obama was asked about ACORN yesterday in an interview on one of the Sunday talk shows.

But I'd like to make a different point here. ChildofMidnight has been blocked (and unblocked) and/or warned for violating or nearly violating his topic ban on a number of occasions. At the very least he walks right along the edge of his ban, and has repeatedly made reference (either directly or indirectly) to the Obama articles and all the injustices that supposedly happen there all over the project. Contrast this with the behavior of User:Scjessey who was also topic banned for the same period as C of M but who, you'll notice (or rather not notice), never shows up on ANI or AE as possibly violating his topic ban. Scjessey has promised to stay far away from anything about Obama and has (as far as I know) managed to do so. ChildofMidnight can't seem to do that (it really, really shouldn't be that hard), and furthermore when he is called on it you get comments like this directed at Carcharoth. In all seriousness I would say that's roughly the 200th diff I've seen where C of M lashes out at another editor with phrases like "Your actions have done a lot to encourage incivility and you’ve lent support to censorship and thuggish mob behavior," etc. etc.

A week block would have been appropriate here (though I think even that was unnecessarily long, I would have gone with 48 hours), and it's unfortunate that Sandstein made the error of blocking for a month. Law should not have unblocked, but it's not the end of the world either. Both of them probably could have been a bit more flexible after the fact which could have prevented an escalation to this page but I'm sure they both meant well.

Among other good contributions, ChildofMidnight writes a bunch of articles about strange food items and other off-beat topics and that's great, but he he's been involved with an unbelievable amount of strife in more contentious topic areas, and contrary to his own belief that's largely due to his own actions rather than some grand conspiracy of "thugs" who are out get him. I have no idea what to do about the situation and am holding to a self-imposed restriction on even interacting directly with C of M—which seemed wise after he repeatedly, as in over and over and over again, said that a number of editors were acting just like the Nazis did and even illustrated that visually—but there's no way this is the last problem we'll see involving this editor. All in all it's just a sad situation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to agree with Sandstein above that this comment by Law on C of M's talk page is incredibly ill-advised. Unblocking an editor in an at least semi-controversial manner and then joking around with said editor about how dumb the original block was (and that's exactly what's going on there—I don't think it can be read any other way) shows rather poor judgment. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChildofMidnight

Nuts. This whole thing is nuts. You drama mongers should give it a rest and stop playing into the hands of those trying to ban me by causing these ridiculous disruptions. If there’s something you don’t want me to edit just ask.

I’ve avoided Obama articles and content about Obama for months including several articles I created and articles I’m interested in and have a history editing. I’ve avoided interacting with the abusive stalker who continues this relentless campaign to get me banned. Yet here we are again with the same bullshit connect the dots campaign where aspersions, innuendo, and assumptions of bad faith replace common sense.

Have any of you actually looked at the diffs? They don’t have anything to do with Obama and are all entirely reasonable. The article, which is long, mentions Obama once 3/4 of the way in. This effort to use noticeboards and complaints to win content disputes is HIGHLY disruptive.

I haven’t edited any of the articles about Obama or any content about Obama in months. So this is just another disruption stirred up by partisans who want me blocked and my ban extended so they can push their POV in an ever wider swath of articles with impunity. Everyone here has a stink on them from wallowing in the bullshit. Look at the diffs for heaven sakes!

And why didn’t Sandstein just ask me to leave off editing that article? How hard is that? A month-long block? What did he think would happen? Is there such an utter lack of common sense and decency in our admin corps that it’s come to this? And don’t get me started on all the lies, misrepresentations and distortions he and others have included in their evidence. If I addressed them all my statement would be as long as Wikidemon’s, only accurate.

Sandstein acted in good faith but improperly, against policy and with poor judgment. It was a classic block first ask questions later and it wasn't even correct on technical grounds as far as the length or its representation of my block log, which full of bogus blocks and mistakes that are even now being used against me.

Law contacted Sandstein after the block, but as per usual Sandstein pulled the bad block and run maneuver, and made no response. Law went ahead and unblocked which immediately defused the situation and allowed for collegial discussion.

I’m willing to leave off editing ACORN and any other article that people seriously think is about or closely related to Obama. Every political article and issue that is controversial can be related to him in some sense, but a complete ban on political subjects wasn’t the intent of the restriction and these disruptive reports shouldn’t be used to further interfere with my good faith editing.

I should be rewarded for abiding restrictions by restrictions that totally misguided and improper in the first place (four edits over two days with discussion inbetween? What a joke). This is just more of the same with efforts to censor me. The best way to stop the disruption is to stop these ridiculous and disruptive attacks and smears against me.

If there’s something you don’t want me to edit just let me know! But please, PUT A STOP THE MADNESS and drop this divisive, dramatic, and disruptive nonsense. There are no radical edits I’ve made. There’s no content about Obama or contact with anyone I’m not supposed to be in contact with (because of restrictions imposed at my request based on their relentlessly stalking and harassing me).

The role of admins and arbcom is to lessen the drama and to resolve disputes, not to add gasoline to the fire. That’s what Sandstein did and it was entirely proper that his absurd and erroneous block was undone. Showing the silliness of all this, the editing issue has been resolved now anyway with the inaccuracy I was highlighting getting corrected. Obviously I’ll leave off editing the ACORN article which some editors have suggested is too close to Obama even though he’s not discussed much in it. So there isn’t even anything in dispute except for this shit storm of Sandstein and Wikidemon’s making. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Juliancolton

Some of the involved parties made inappropriate actions; that we can't deny. But I'm in agreement with Lara. Discussion definitely should have taken place before unblocking CoM, but an immediate RfAR? Very little can't be resolved by the community, and in my opinion, this is a case where some conversation, a straightforward ANI thread and a few {{trout}}'s would have proved more effective than intervention from ArbCom. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Spartaz

Has this stalled or are the arbs arguing away fiercely in the background about whether to do anything here? Spartaz Humbug! 21:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Spartaz Humbug! 21:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revised bitching from Noroton

My original comment was censored, not by clerks but first by someone involved as a commenter in this case, Protonk, some of whose points I was criticizing. (I thought that clerks were the only ones authorized to police these pages, and the comment was up long enough for clerks to note it.) But that doesn't remove the fact that administrators on this site have still created a complete mess, and you all need to be confronted with the facts.

We have admins quite happy to pounce on editors on one side of this (Child of Midnight) while strangely unable to act when repeated complaints are made at 3RR/N and AN/I. You all need to be confronted with that.

We have a policy, NPOV, that arbitrators commonly throw up their hands and say they can't possibly enforce because it's a content policy and they only deal with behavior. At AN/I, admins regularly say the same thing. Fair enough. But then when complaints are made on one side in a dispute and are ignored when, shortly afterward, complaints from the other side result in quick blocks, we have admins -- in effect -- conducting POV pushing by proxy. Do they mean to do this? Intention is nearly impossible to prove, but in other cases we do have cases of admins with quite pronounced points of view blocking editors with opposing views, and doing so at the behest of POV pushing edit warriors. On this matter we have LuLu of the Lotus Eaters and Xenophrenic both edit warring at Acorn, both going over the 3RR limit in a days-long (now weeks-long? I haven't bothered to check) POV fight. And we have a complete, total breakdown in admin enforcement at both AN/I and 3RR/N. Not only did my second 3RR/N complaint get absolutely no action, but it sat there as every other single fucking complaint on that page was dealt with. So now we don't just have admins unable to enfroce NPOV, but they can't even enforce clear, black and white, obvious, cut and dried repeated violations of behavioral policy -- but only if those complaints are made against one side. There is no possible way that LuLu's violation of WP:3RR can be interpreted as not a violation, although that was done. I guess no admin dared to even comment on the second violation at 3RR/N because the embarassing hypocrisy of not acting was too much to handle. And when I brought it to AN/I, not one of these editors or admins commenting here had the decency to comment when the shoe was on the other foot. You need to be confronted with that.

Stomp in (commenting or acting) when it's one side getting the complaints and then ignore the blatant violations on the other side. What sterling behavior we have on the part of our admin corps here. You need to be confronted with that.

But when you do it, don't expect not to be called hypocrites. You are all, each one of you, hypocrites. Got it? Hypocrites. You make yourselves look like you're enforcing various behavioral policies, but when you enforce them only selectively against one side, what you're enforcing is something entirely different.

And you need to be confronted with that.

And here's the proof showing that you are Hypocrites. [123] Hypocrites. [124] Hypocrites. [125] Hypocrites. [126] There's just never enough time to address the crap that one side pushes out, but always the time to suit up for the S.W.A.T team when the other side is spitting on the sidewalk. What possible explanation can there be for this other than that you are complete and utter hypocrites.

And that's true whether or not you meant to POV push by hobbling one side and coddling the other. The fact is, you did it, no matter what you meant to do, and selective enforcement is still selective enforcement whenever you dip a toe in as an admin either by commenting or blocking one side and then walk away. Because you can be expected to know what will happen.

Look at the discussions the diffs point to and you can't come to any other conclusion: You all failed. Massively. If you have any integrity at all, any of you, editors, admins, arbs, you'll recognize that. Whether you have the guts to actually admit this is fucked up is not something that I even hope for. Therefore the resignation. -- Noroton (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comment from Bongomatic

Vassyana's comment below is sensible. There is room for criticism all around. Despite the definition of "broadly construed", the connection between ACORN and Obama is tenuous. Despite the potential violation, immediate blocking of conduct that was easy to construe as at worst an unintentional—and by no means edit-warring—violation of a topic ban without notice or discussion is not wise (whether or not permitted or valid), and the egregious careless error in blocking length predictably was gasoline on a flame. Law's overturn without discussion with Sandstein likewise was imprudent. But to the extent that ArbComm believes that the ban extends to ACORN, given COM's statement agreement to stay away from ACORN, the message is received and no benefit can be gained from reinstating the block. Bongomatic 14:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be largely moot per current situation. Bongomatic 05:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
  • Rlevse and Cool Hand Luke, I'm unclear as to whether you are simply commenting or declining the case. Could you clarify? Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
commenting. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC) (Since changed to decline - Manning (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Commenting. If someone would have done it, I think it could have been a decline. Cool Hand Luke 23:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • I've now read through the threads linked above. My view is that this can be dealt with by motion. Sandstein was correct to block ChildofMidnight under the arbitration remedy (both for the article editing and for the comments on Wikidemon). Those protesting that people can follow CoM to articles and frivolously add Obama connections to those articles, are missing the point. If that happens, CoM should e-mail ArbCom and we will deal with it. In the meantime CoM should be editing articles that do not mention Obama at all. There are literally millions of articles that have nothing to do with Obama. The point of the ArbCom remedies was to steer people away from this area, not allow them to hover at the fringes. As for Law's unblock, on initial inspection, I see no good reason for the unblock, which was compounded by not engaging in discussion first. If this is a one-off incident, then a motion to admonish Law may be sufficient to warn people off acting like this in future when arbitration request enforcements are being disputed. Finally, the question of Wikidemon filing the request is problematic. There is sufficient bad blood here that I think a clarification requiring Wikidemon not to file requests about CoM (and vice-versa) would help here. Both should e-mail the Arbitration Committee if they think a breach of the interaction remedy is going unheeded, or they should be assigned an administrator who can raise such matters on their behalf. But reporting breaches of other remedies (which is what Wikidemon did in part here by objecting to the article editing) is just perpetuating the animosity between them. Having said that, I will wait for statements from CoM and Wikidemon, before proposing anything. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noting ChildofMidnight has commented on my talk page here. I agree with Xenophrenic's analysis above. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Decline - overtaken by unrelated events pertaining to the User:Law account. Sandstein, CoM and Wikidemon should note what has been said here by arbitrators and seek additional clarification separately if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prevote comments from Vassyana
  • Noting my general agreement with Carcharoth's comments. In addition, even if one perceives the connection or topic relation as tenuous, the plain English phrase "broadly construed" should remove any doubt. If an editor is under a "broadly construed" topic ban, the restriction covers any article that could be reasonably considered related under an inclusive interpretation of the restricted area. Considering such, it is easy for me to see how ACORN is perceived as related to Obama and difficult to understand how it can be considered unrelated under a broad interpretation of the Obama topic area. Also, as Carcharoth, I am waiting for further statements before moving forward. Vassyana (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to Nmcvocalist, it's a moot point as there is no continuing disagreement or dispute over the block length. Sandstein acknowledged that the maximum block length under the remedy should be one week with apologies in his initial statement. Vassyana (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CoM notes that he is willing to abide by any warnings regarding his topic ban. I hope that enforcing administrators acknowledge that drama-lite and preventative route. However, on the other side, I hope that CoM does not use the opportunity to repeatedly test the boundaries of his topic restriction. In response to CoM's comments, I do agree that the topic ban was not intended to be inclusive of all American politics articles nor was it intended to restrict him from articles that passingly mention the President or that Obama may have expressed an opinion about. I would be very disheartened and concerned if the topic ban was being applied in that manner. However, I do find it at least deeply misguided to compare ACORN (as a topic) to broader points, as ACORN is intimately associated with Obama in United States political discourse and gained immense prominence in American political mind as part of the discourse about Obama. The topic ban clearly applies where there the topic, its importance, or its role in common political discussion is directly connected to President Obama. Vassyana (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. CoM has indicated that he will abide by reasonable warnings. I believe the statements of other editors and artbitrators have made clear the breadth of CoM's topic ban. Sandstein has acknowledged the error in maximum block length. Sandstein is currently undergoing a voluntary review of his administrative actions, including block lengths and usage. It's been made very clear by arbitrator and other comments that Law's unblock was highly inappropriate and he may be sufficiently advised and warned. Thus, there doesn't seem to be much left to arbitrate or consider by motion. Vassyana (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I broadly concur with my colleagues and will wait for further statements.  Roger Davies talk 13:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely agree that the remedy as written would prohibit CoM from editing ACORN so the block was right on. If an admin did not understand the reason for the block, then they need to discuss situation with the blocking admin or make a request for a broader consensus at AE. To the larger issue of a case or motion to formally address the issue, I would like to hear more comments from arbs and replies from the involved parties first. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The block was correct on its face, and I'm very much surprised that another administrator would take it upon themselves to overturn it without actual discussion with the blocking admin. — Coren (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This Unilaterally undoing another administrator's action without discussion or consultation does nothing to help an already heated enviroment. is the crux of the case and such things happen all too often. Jennavecia makes a good point too. I suggest this be dealt with via motion as I also think this particular situation is not ready for a full arbcase. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reblock for a reasonable term and move on. Cool Hand Luke 19:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of subsequent information and the passage of time, I suggest that this matter is moot. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Accordingly, decline. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline Matter is moot. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline/Moot given this: Wikipedia:RFAR#With_respect_to_User:Law_and_User:The_undertow — Rlevse • Talk • 00:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=318146732"