Jump to content

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 Arcticocean (talk | contribs) at 19:44, 14 November 2009 (→‎JohnWBarber Versageek Lar: Reply to Daniel. JohnWBarber asked to reduce statement lenght.). 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
JohnWBarber Versageek Lar   10 November 2009 {{{votes}}}
HistoricWarrior007 topic-ban appeal   9 November 2009 {{{votes}}}
Hounding of Tothwolf   7 November 2009 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Aug 2024 03 Sep 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion none 26 July 2024
Clarification request: Appeal methods for Lima Bean Farmer topic ban none none 12 August 2024
Amendment request: German war effort Motion (orig. case) 13 August 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) none none 17 August 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

JohnWBarber Versageek Lar

Initiated by JohnWBarber (talk) at 01:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Lar (attempt to resolve this on his talk page: [3])
  • Versageek (attempt to resolve this on his talk page: [4])

Statement by JohnWBarber

Two checkusers, User:Lar and User:Versageek worked together (in ways I can't get to the bottom of) to blow away my effort at exercising WP:CLEANSTART when I strongly disagreed with Lar in related AfD [5] and DRV [6] discussions. Versageek,blocked me [7] for no good reason (as he admits [8]) and declared my accounts "sock puppets" on their pages, during a hotly contested, widely seen AfD, he set the stage that shoved me through a gauntlet of abuse [9]: [10]): [11] [12] [13] [14] (this last one ABF by implication) [15], (the following have since been refactored: [16] [17], [18] [19]). I exercised WP:CLEANSTART with my User:Noroton account (not perfectly -- I was sloppy and violated a few details -- but substantially I followed the provisions of WP:SOCK of which CLEANSTART is a part). That account retired and finally made its last edit on Oct. 5. (contribs history [20]) On Oct. 19 I began participating in an AfD debate on the David Shankbone article, at first supporting deletion, [21] then, when more facts came to light about the sourcing, [22] changing my vote to "Keep". [23] Throughout the discussion I focused on what WP:DEL policy tells us we are supposed to focus on: participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. [24] When the closing admin acted suspiciously in deciding to delete, I opened a DRV and strongly criticized that admin. In my nomination statement at DRV, I also mentioned Lar [25] to make a relevant point about the state of WP:DEL policy, and then we countered each other's points repeatedly in the DRV, which is worth reading -- these diffs, especially, which I think show how angry Lar got: [26] [27], and see [28] and [29]

Given WP:CLEANSTART, I wasn't "socking abusively" in any but the most trivial sense, since I didn't operate alternate accounts in a way that would have thwarted anyone with a "legitimate interest" (see "avoiding scrutiny"; this and the next reference to WP:SOCK policy are to the 10/28 version in effect when I was blocked, in case there's been a change [30]) in my past from finding out all they needed to know. No one had a legitimate interest to know that I was Noroton. If WP:CLEANSTART [31] means anything at all, it bars checkusers from publicly linking the old and the new account unless some action taken by the new account involves disruption, active deception or participation on pages the old account previously edited, if there is controversy involved. (Technically, I should have used the User:Reconsideration account for AfDs, but no harm was involved by using this account -- nothing relevant to the Shankbone AfD/DRV would have been learned by looking at that account's edit history, and no one disputes that.) I was accused of participating in order to somehow harm Shankbone by later going back to the article and editing it. I've explained elsewhere why this is a ridiculous, bad-faith assumption: [32] [33] [34] [35] and Versageek said he didn't think I acted in bad faith. I had every reason to assume that I could tell anyone who asked that this was not my first account and that it was nobody's business what my previous account was.

What makes Lar's situation problematic is that he contacted Versageek, the two apparently discussed the matter, and Versageek, without, he tells me, consulting with any other checkusers, determined my other accounts and blocked me under a strained, contrary-to-policy interpretation of SOCK policy. The DRV, in which several editors commented on my block and even wondered whether or not the page should be shut down, was distracted and disrupted by the block. Versageek said I was somehow being "disruptive" and therefore violating policy by participating in the AfD as JohnWBarber, although he can't give a decipherable explanation of that [36] [37] [38]. Lar also told me he thought I was disruptive, but he refuses to say how, despite my repeated requests that he do that. [39] This is a serious misreading of WP:SOCK policy by checkusers whose job it is to know that policy inside and out. It isn't an acceptable interpretation of policy, either, since it simply flies in the face of what WP:CLEANSTART actually says and is for, and it's against both the letter and spirit of policy.

My reputation is hurt unfairly as a result of all this, because as soon as many editors read "He was a sock", they assume the worst. There are plenty of editors who would bring up my block if I ever comment in a discussion about someone's behavior (and plenty of administrators who would view the block as confirmation I'd done something wrong). The bell can't be unrung as far as identifying my account with Noroton and the other accounts. But if Arbcom can state that I wasn't disruptive, I can always point to the diff if the matter ever comes up again. I'm not recommending a block or desysop or any kind of sanctions -- I want these to editors to acknowledge that my behavior was not "disruptive" or I want ArbCom to state that it wasn't so that we prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future. If a violation is borderline, then it should be absolutely clear in the administrator's mind just why the matter is important enough for a block, and the admin should be ready to unblock and discuss, not stay silent for 24 hours. Since Lar and Versageek have not been responsive to the questions I've asked them and have not made public their private discussion (which has no reason to remain private since it dealt with Versageek's official actions as a checkuser and admin), ArbCom should review the entire communication and determine that it was as innocuous as both editors claim it was, then make public whatever doesn't need to be kept private. It's possible that other editors were discussed in that private communication -- were they somehow wronged as well? JohnWBarber (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Viridae If an ombudsman or some other forum can (1) review and make public the Lar-Versageek communication on this; (2) make an authoritative statement that I was not disruptive, to counter this smear from elected Wikipedia officials who should know better; (3) issue a finding with enough weight to get the attention of Lar, Versageek and perhaps other checkusers to make it more likely they'll pay closer attention to what WP:SOCK actually says -- then sure, why not? But I doubt that's the case. Given that Lar and others were saying in the DRV that admins should violate WP:DEL policy, and that Lar essentially dared me to take the matter to this forum, I think ArbCom members have an additional reason to read through that Shankbone DRV if they haven't already, because it might be good preparation for some future Arb case (although I'm not actually threatening to file one). It's possible ArbCom may want to head off that future case by expanding this one to cover the Shankbone AfD close. Lar seemed to indicate at the DRV he had ArbCom support, or was, at least, fine with ArbCom reviewing his against-policy AfD closes. This might be an efficient way to settle this kind of problem before more controversial AfD closes come up. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Lar I was told AUSC was contacted, not that it had taken up the case. Now we're told it's pending? When was I supposed to be contacted to give my side and discuss my concerns? If there's some kind of deliberation going on, it's been in private, which is not the best way to handle a concern about whether an improper discussion between two checkusers was held in private. Nor will AUSC be able to state with as much authority as ArbCom can whether or not I was disruptive. I'm tired of Lar's combination of smearing and stonewalling. It's probably better for Wikipedia if ArbCom handles this. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Lar's 2nd comment My interpretations are very few and very closely tied to diffs and common sense -- much closer than Lars' (such as the interpretation that I was "threatening" Lar). I don't want to or need to come up with a conspiracy theory, but reasonable concerns and reasonable questions should be addressed. If Lar won't address them, someone else should. And it's not so much my "feelings" that need to be addressed as my questions and concerns, including but not limited to the ones never answered on Lar's talk page. Did AUSC ask Lar those questions? Did Lar answer them? Would ArbCom ask them? JohnWBarber (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Rlevse Will AUSC be able to answer the concerns I've raised? Can that body say with any authority, "JohnWBarber was not disruptive in the AfD or DRV", so that I can point to that if the smear is repeated? Will that body be able to say, "Yes, JohnWBarber violated WP:SOCK in various technical ways, but there is no evidence he was disruptive or meant any harm"? Will AUSC tell Lar and Versageek, "Don't call a fellow editor "disruptive" unless you are prepared to state exactly why"? JohnWBarber (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Versageek You can't seem to explain how my participation in the AfD or DRV was wrong (in terms of WP:SOCK), either by my presence there or by how I conducted myself there. If you'd been able to give a plausible reading of WP:SOCK policy or even just kept this to private communication, I doubt I'd have enougth reason to be here. But the combination of a personal attack (which I doubt you meant to deliver, but that's what it amounts to when you can't adequately explain yourself), block, private communication with another checkuser who was in a hot disagreement with me and the abuse from others that followed -- all that gives me no choice but to be here or accept more abuse from people referring to the block. Acknowledgement that you misread policy and that I was not disruptive, together with some determination from an authoritative third party that the private communication doesn't point to something improper is all I need to drop this here and now. JohnWBarber (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC) edited to add the part in parentheses in the first line -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@J.Delanoy I anticipated every one of your objections and answered some of them before you posted. You seem to be assuming I want total exoneration for everything I've done. But I've repeatedly said I was sloppy, and if this case is accepted I'd be happy to write the findings and whatnot myself to save ArbCom members the time. I didn't actually need to present myself as a new user in order to exercise WP:CLEANSTART (see last sentence, second paragraph of my statement). My sloppiness doesn't ultimately excuse Lar's and Versageek's conduct. You're wrong on one point: Versageek told me on his talk page that he did not consult with any other checkusers. Lar, the one I was in a debate with, was the only other checkuser in any way involved. Can you see how that would raise eyebrows? Read the discussions I had with them on their talk pages. If their communication was totally innocent, ArbCom or AUSC should tell us. I'm not asking for sanctions. If you think the abuse I got was all due to my own sloppiness, well, thanks for your opinion, and I hope you didn't pop a vein expressing it. Which of us has been loudly screaming "ZOMGABUSE!!!!" ? If it was me, the screaming is so soft I should be contacting the Guinness book. Read the discussions I had on their talk pages, and when you find the screaming, point it out to me. JohnWBarber (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)added last three sentences -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@J.Delanoy's 2nd comment If JD reads my initial statement here and my comments at Lar's and Versageek's talk pages, all his questions will be answered and his points refuted. If he's still missed a few answers, it would be better to ask me first on another talk page, otherwise this complaint is going to get too long. I'm happy to discuss it elsewhere, or just about anywhere (and with anyone) as my contributions history from the last week shows. JohnWBarber (talk) 05:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Mackan79 and John Vandenberg There is a difference between minimal violations that may be worth a private discussion and coming down with a public block hammer to protect the encyclopedia and people in it. Versageek has recognized it, and that's likely because he read my responses to this; neither of your comments recognize the difference, so I suggest you do the same ([40] [41] [42] [43]). Short (exaggerated) version: You don't conduct a SWAT raid when someone puts a recyclable into a regular trash bin. I don't need to claim perfection to correctly point out that the response was wildly disproportionate. I don't need to declare a conspiracy or that two checkusers are devils incarnate in order to make a serious complaint that (a) checkusers need to know and follow SOCK policy, not violate it in basic ways; (b) admins need to recognize the difference between editors clearly hurting the encyclopedia or other people, and editors violating minor parts of policy that show no intent to harm or danger of harm; (c) the way this block happened blurred the important distinction in part "b" and this episode shows what's wrong with blurring that distinction; (d) you don't defend a very wrong, very publicized block by smearing someone as "disruptive" when he wasn't (Versageek and Lar) or blaming the editor for not perfectly following all minor points of WP:SOCK policy (Lar, John Vandenberg, maybe Mackan79), which then has the effect of supporting the string of comments I posted near the top of my statement; (e) one checkuser (Versageek) communicating only with an angry, complainant/checkuser competing in a debate with me did not consult with anyone before performing a bad block and providing reasons that can't be traced back to policy or even an IAR-like commonsense concern -- since it wasn't good practice, doesn't look good and doesn't have a reasonable explanation it raises reasonable suspicion and therefore should be looked into, with the communication made public. Arbcom doesn't demand perfection from editors before accepting their requests for arbitration (any more than CLEANSTART demands an empty block record, John -- blocks in place means "currently in effect" not "on record"). Anyone reading this page should ask themselves whether Lar's or Versageek's statements and actions were justified in any way by my conduct. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@John Vandenberg You're on AUSC. If the undisclosed Lar-Versageek communication is innocuous and you've seen it, why not just say so and put my concerns to rest? I didn't go the RfC route because that's not the best way to handle concerns about undisclosed communications. Clearly, Lar doesn't think he needs to explain himself in any detail at all, and won't. Clearly, I think he does. Is an RfC popularity contest (or for that matter AUSC) the best place to handle that or is ArbCom?
@JohnVandenberg, further This comment of yours (in italics) deserves a response: this request has not shown any concerted effort on your part to follow it. As a result of the very foundation of this request being on shaky ground, I can't put everything in the initial statement. I made my intentions to follow policy clear and airtight in statements at User talk:Noroton and my current talk page. As far as the past is concerned, the fact that I followed sock policy as it existed when I started the accounts a year ago should be "concerted effort" enough for ordinary editors to expect good faith assumptions on the part of checkusers, or Arbcom members. and your intentions not being communicated to anyone in advance, That's never been a requirement of the policy and doesn't excuse the bad behavior on the part of Versageek and Lar that I've detailed here. I am not keen on arbcom getting involved in divining whether your intentions were acceptable It doesn't take a whole lot of keenness to say I wasn't being disruptive in an AfD or DRV, does it? And the keenness necessary to divine that was a responsibility of the editor who blocked me, wasn't it? ... I mean, these guys did need a reason to block me and call me "disruptive" at AN/I and elsewhere, didn't they? Some reason beyond a technicality, right? If the reason wasn't "disruption" and instead something else, then whatever it was had to have some basis in real-world concerns for the encyclopedia or people, didn't it? There was no reason for blocking first and asking questions later (or in this case, blocking, staying silent for 24 hours as to one's reasons, then stating them for the first time at AN/I, in a confusing statement). If you're this reluctant to delve into whether or not the actual reason given for the block had any basis in reality at all, despite the fact that the two checkusers involved can't or won't explain it, why would AUSC, which you're a member of, be a good venue for my complaint? I didn't ask you to divine my intentions. I asked you to say I didn't engage in disruption in the AfD or DRV and put a smear to bed. Not difficult Arbcom fare at all. JohnWBarber (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Mackan79 I've addressed your point about Shankbone elsewhere: My first edit after the block [44]; another statement I made about his point at the DRV is worth reading (points #3 and #5, but given your other comments, read the whole thing) [45]; Shankbone's response on my talk page [46]; since Shankbone and two editors (including Wikidemon, who I've had ongoing disputes with in the past) who brought up their suspicions both [47] [48] said they had no reason not to assume good faith, and because Versageek seemed to indicate he didn't think I was there to get Shankbone [49], I didn't include any of this in my initial statement. It seems to be a nonissue. JohnWBarber (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Coren Is it acceptable for a Wikipedia official to call another editor "disruptive" and accompany that with a block and a brouhaha when no disruption can be pointed to and no policy violation other than something trivial (and completely unrelated to disruption)? And is it acceptable to disrupt a contentious DRV when doing that? And how does it look when the checkuser had communication with another checkuser who took the other side in that DRV and was clearly upset with the editor who then got blocked? Is AUSC the proper venue to address all this? Are most of these concerns related to the use of checkuser powers? Who but ArbCom can both look at the undisclosed communication and then rule on the broader issues? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin the sock policy, howsoever worded, has always been about the appearance of deception. From what I can tell, it's been about deception for the purpose of (a) misrepresenting levels of support of one kind or another, and (b) preventing legitimate scrutiny. And the CLEANSTART provision, for however long it's been there, is an exception that doesn't conflict with (a) because CLEANSTART takes effect when one account is extinguished. With (b) it's a bit more problematic in theory, because it's possible to see damage being done to the encyclopedia and editors in it by an editor using the CLEANSTART loophole to avoid legitimate scrutiny and attack another editor. (By the way, it isn't wikilawyering to recognize the tension between CLEANSTART and other parts of WP:SOCK -- it's wikilawyering to pretend that tension doesn't exist, and this isn't a criticism of SV, whose statement recognizes the tension.) What's a reasonable checkuser or a reasonable "cleanstarting" editor to do in these circumstances? In my case, not attack another editor that I had conflicts with in the past. Nothing even close to that was done here. My response to Mackan79's comment gives the overwhelming proof of that. Nor was this one of Versageek's stated reasons for the block. Nor did I have a past antagonism with anybody that I pursued with any alternate account. What would a reasonable checkuser do in Versageek's shoes? This is what a checkuser should be expected to do (I'm not describing the wisest approach, just what a typical approach should be): (1) In general, look for actual practical harm or danger of it and avoid blocking until that kind of blockable offense presents itself; don't block on technicalities and minor mistakes, especially given that WP:SOCK policy has been fluid at the time Noroton resigned (a checkuser should be expected to be an expert on WP:SOCK policy and actively following all those fluid changes, and should be expected to recognize that common editors won't be experts on it); (2) Get a sense of what the editor has been doing with the various accounts -- any harm, or does it look innocuous?; (3) for an editor that you find in technical violation but with no evidence of intentional violation, open up a dialogue (preferably, but not necessarily, off-wiki; probably via email) and require that no edits in an area of concern are made until the matter is settled; (4) any unusual, difficult-to-figure-out situation is something checkusers are encouraged to consult with each other about. Compare with Versageek's actions: (I) private communication with a checkuser who contacted her and who was already angry with me; (II) block me without discussion and only the briefest of notices -- without even the typical unblock device put on Noroton's talk page; (III) wait 24 hours before providing any explanation at all, allowing a dramafest to develop -- a disruptive dramafest; (IV) provide that explanation at AN/I; (V) provide that explanation at AN/I when the blocked editor can't respond to it except on his talk page; (VI) provide that explanation with a vague reference to policy that contradicts the actual language of that same policy; (VII) state that the blocked editor was being "deceptive" (ignoring the tension between CLEANSTART and the rest of WP:SOCK as noted above) and therefore -- in some confusing way never adequately explained -- "disruptive" (but more on this in my response to Lar); (VIII) not consult with other checkusers before the block; (IX) continue to state that I was "disruptive" and "deceptive" in some way that hurt the encyclopedia while refusing to point to specific ways I was doing so, perpetuating what became a smear. If someone wants to stretch what policy actually says in order to block an editor, some reasonable justification is needed. The same applies to accusing an editor of bad behavior.
@Lar's 3rd statement He simply continues to smear me, claiming "goodhand/badhand behavior" (from SOCK's WP:ILLEGIT:"Good hand, bad hand" accounts: Keeping one account "clean" while using another to engage in disruption). He's refused to specify that because I can match him quote for quote, diff for diff, showing my criticism of the closing admin was milder than that of many others (most editors in that DRV criticized the closing admin's action, one of the reasons we have DRVs), and any sharp comments to Lar were more than matched by his sharp comments to me. Hotly contested matters will be contested sharply, and we are allowed to get a bit hot under the collar if we don't violate WP:CIV, much less WP:NPA or WP:DISRUPT. In his comments about this, starting in the DRV, Lar has shown no recognition of the differences between allowable debate and argument, incivility, personal attacks and disruption. None. I think I'm going to set up a list of Lar's comments in that DRV and maybe AfD and compare them with mine and with other comments in those discussions and we'll see just how his comments compare with mine. It needs to be seen to be believed. Behavioral policies apply to all editors, even editors with tools. Starting a DRV is not disruptive. Although the word "contentious" appears twice at WP:SOCK in connection with CLEANSTART accounts, it means "causing trouble" -- empty AN/I complaints, useless RfA comments, unjustified AfD nominations, not "daring to disagree" in a civil way. It certainly doesn't mean not participating in discussions -- because that would be ridiculous. Starting a DRV is not causing trouble, especially when arguing policy and criticizing a closing admin in a DRV. If we're going to have CLEANSTART at all, we need to allow editors to be involved in new discussions when their behavior complies with policies, guidelines and norms. JohnWBarber (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Versageek

  • Regarding my use of CU tools: I have requested a WP:AUSC review, which is pending.
  • Regarding my admin actions: While I don't feel the actions I did take were unjustified, I have acknowledged on wiki that given similar circumstances in the future, I would handle the situation differently. --Versageek 03:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lar

An WP:AUSC review is pending, please await the outcome. . ++Lar: t/c 02:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any doubt about how Noroton feels about this matter, whether AUSC formally solicits his views or not. However, putting it mildly, many of his interpretations are incorrect at best. ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should this case eventually wend its way back here, I think it would be highly useful for ArbCom to clarify that a clean start means just that... starting over. Socking for 11 months before retiring the old account, then switching from quiet editing with the sock, to high drama editing with the sock, isn't a clean start, it's goodhand/badhand behavior. ArbCom ought to remove any possible ambiguite, and rule that such behavior is unacceptably disruptive. ++Lar: t/c 17:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Viridae

Shouldn't this be an ombudsman matter? ViridaeTalk 01:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by J.delanoy

Under the section labeled "Alternate account notification" on WP:SOCK, it says "Editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying a [checkuser] or member of the arbitration committee if they believe editing will attract scrutiny. Editors who heavily edit controversial material, those who maintain single purpose accounts, as well as editors considering becoming an administrator are among the groups of editors who attract scrutiny even if their editing behavior itself is not problematic or only marginally so."

Your anger at being "found out" is completely unjustified, since the effects were entirely a result of your actions. Or should I say your lack of action. Simply by emailing ArbCom or functionaries-en, or one of the other appropriate lists, you could have prevented this from happening.

I would like to request that this case be formally rejected, not merely deferred to the Audit Subcommittee.

An algorithm that describes of the best ways I can imagine NOT to avoid having an old account connected with a new account under the fresh start guidelines follows:

  1. Start with an undeclared alternate account.
  2. At all cost, and under any circumstances, avoid telling anyone at all what you are doing.
  3. "Discover" formal deletion discussions - in July - using your 55th edit in 2009, and 156th overall.
  4. Make around 40 edits to deletion discussions before you retire your "main" account".
  5. Comment on one of the most controversial AfDs in the last year before you make your 250th edit.
  6. (Re?)Start a deletion review on said article.
  7. When a checkuser runs a query to see who the hell your account is, and blocks you and your old account after s/he consults another checkuser to make sure s/he is sane, loudly scream "ZOMGABUSE!!!!", start an Arbitration case, and present myriad conspiracy theories explaining how the two checkusers deliberately and consciously colluded to get you blocked, because they disagreed with you.

This last tactic always works, as since mere administrators are ALWAYS wrong under all circumstances AND DON'T YOU FORGET IT! Yes, I am talking to YOU!, checkusers, who are obviously so much greater than admins in terms of power, etc., accusing them of being wrong is a sure-fire way to deflect the blame away from your own blunders.

Does this look familiar?

I quite honestly don't think there is anything else to say, except possibly this. J.delanoygabsadds 04:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to JohnWBarber
If you "anticipated every one of my objections", why did you fail to answer the one that is most central to this case? Namely, you have not shown that Versageek intentionally performed any actions which violate the letter or spirit of any policy or guideline.

By definition, using an alternate account to avoid scrutiny in a controversial wiki-matter (not related to the real world) is disruptive.

So when Versageek ran a checkuser query on your account, s/he was acting completely within policy. When you were blocked as a sock, no policies were broken, as Versageek made the only conclusion s/he could have made (absent telepathy): that you were attempting to avoid scrutiny. Essentially, you are asking the Committee to — actually, what ARE you asking them to do? You explicitly stated in your response to me above that "I'm not asking for sanctions.". If you are not looking for sanctions, what are you doing here?

Working on the assumption that you misspoke, and that you actually are working towards some result other than a massive drama fest for the sake of itself, your entire request boils down to this: You are asking the Arbitration Committee to sanction two checkusers for taking perfectly normal actions against an account, for the sole reason that they did not know it was a legitimate attempt at a restart. The problem with this is, you didn't tell anyone it was an alternate account. How can you expect Versageek and Lar to know that you were not trying to evade scrutiny, when you did not tell anyone what you were doing? Had I been following the sequence of events surrounding that AfD and DRV, I would almost certainly have checkusered your account, and if the results were anything like I expect they were based on the checkuser log entries, I would have drawn the same conclusions that Versageek did.

Just 48 hours ago, I said this, but I think it bears repeating: Special:ReadMind does not redirect to Special:CheckUser. Until it does, and/or until an Extension:ReadMind is enabled, you cannot hold a checkuser responsible for overlooking a fact that only you know.

I am also not impressed with you characterization of this diff. Where does Versageek admit that s/he blocked you for no good reason? If anything, I read that as the exact opposite. Just what sort of game are you trying to play here?

Oh, and with regard to "loudly scream 'ZOMGABUSE!!!'", I thought it was more clear that I intended that as hyperbole. J.delanoygabsadds 05:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mackan79

This is odd, as I've found Noroton reasonable before, but this request defies understanding. He acknowledges violating policy, but wants ArbCom to clear him of wrongdoing? He says no one in this AfD had any legitimate interest in knowing he was Noroton, despite as I understand a direct history of conflict with the subject of the BLP at hand? This request seems completely out of left field. Mackan79 (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To John Vandenberg, I suspect you may have over-read the policy edits. "No blocks or bans in place" is a statement that you can't edit any account when one account is blocked or banned (this has always been true, or at least assumed). It isn't to say that those who have ever been blocked face the same prohibition. Another proposal similar to what you suggest was recently suggested on the talk page, but as I understand is currently stalled. (Nevertheless I do not think JohnWBarber's actions here amount to a "clean start," or the kind of thing the policy has ever meant by that, either, though I grant it's something he could have thought.) Mackan79 (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SlimVirgin

JohnWBarber asked me to comment here about JohnV's interpretation of the part of SOCK that says CLEANSTART is " permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account." JohnV, the operative phrase here is "in place," which means active, so it wasn't a change in the policy. In that sense, JohnWB didn't violate it, because no blocks or bans were active at the time he created the new account.

JohnWB, the sock policy, howsoever worded, has always been about the appearance of deception. The problem here is that you engaged in an AfD, and started a DRV, regarding someone you'd been in conflict with, but you didn't say who you were. No matter the particular wording of the SOCK policy on any given day, the appearance of deception puts you in violation of it.

Having said that, I think you were acting in good faith, because you initially voted to delete the article on the grounds that the main source was only a mention in passing, but when you realized that the whole article was about the subject, you changed your vote. Your willingness to go with the argument persuades me that your intentions were above board. I think a CU was nevertheless justified, because the AfD and DRV were drama-causing, and it was therefore a reasonable assumption that any new-ish accounts who were becoming very involved might indeed be alternate accounts. I don't know whether I'd say the block and the public linking was justified, because I've not looked at the timing of the various edits and account creations, or how vitriolic the dispute between you and David was, and whether the block was the right thing would depend on those issues.

I think if you have concerns that the CU wasn't done correctly, you should write to Thatcher so that your perspective is before the audit committee when it looks at this. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel

4,130 words is ridiculous for a pre-acceptance statement and replies on this page. The clerks should, in my opinion, forcibly refactor large swathes of Noroton's section to comply with general procedure. Daniel (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Pending AUSC This is precisely what AUSC is for. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse (and for the record, I have also recused on the AUSC case). I was actively involved in the deletion discussions surrounding the article that triggered the concerns regarding the JohnWBarber account. I would, however, encourage JohnWBarber to consider formally filing his concern with the AUSC as the earlier step in dispute resolution. Risker (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. You sure picked a bad time to exercise WP:CLEANSTART. A few days prior to October 5 (when "Noroton" became inactive for 23 days) SlimVirgin changed the policy from the long standing tradition of encouraging fresh starts for contributors who have had a poor run (If you have a negative track record ... and do not wish it to be tarnished by your prior conduct, you can simply discontinue using the old account) to prohibiting it in most cases (This is permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account). The previous wording has been around for years, and SlimVirgin's change has remained undisputed or discussed on the talk page. As a consequence, with your previous block log, policy did not support you having a right to exercise WP:CLEANSTART when you did it. This and many other aspects of the sock policy are in flux at the moment. While I can appreciate that you may not watch this policy closely, this request has not shown any concerted effort on your part to follow it. As a result of the very foundation of this request being on shaky ground, and your intentions not being communicated to anyone in advance, I am not keen on arbcom getting involved in divining whether your intentions were acceptable.
    The checkuser aspect should be addressed to AUSC, and an RFC can be initiated to obtain community feedback regarding whether the principles or spirit of SOCK were violated. My advice to people wanting to use an alternative account is to stay well within the margins, and that the only way to have a "safe" alternative account is to communicate your intentions to multiple checkusers or to arbcom, receive confirmation back from them that your intentions are within policy, and then stick to those intentions. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline; alleged impropriety of checkuser privileges falls squarely within AUSC's jurisdiction. — Coren (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, though send this to AUSC soon. Wizardman 07:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HistoricWarrior007 topic-ban appeal

Initiated by HistoricWarrior007 (talk) at 09:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation:


No attempts at Dispute Resolution were tried. I was unjustly banned based on a case I didn't even know existed. Here's FutPerf's reason for the topic-ban:

HistoricWarrior, with this edit I feel you have crossed a line. You (and others) were warned some weeks ago that the permanent hostility and edit-warring on that article would not be tolerated forever. For the aggressive "ownership" attitude, hostility, threats and personal attacks expressed in this latest posting of yours, in connection with the months-long history of near-permanent edit-warring on the same article, you are now topic-banned from the 2008 South Ossetia War article, all articles related to it, and all related talk pages, for a period of two months. This topic ban will be logged at the Arbcom enforcement section of WP:DIGWUREN. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by HistoricWarrior007

FutPerf accuses me of (1) ownership of the article; (2) edit-warring and hostility; (3) threats;

(1) Ownership: I have encouraged everyone to use the discussion page prior to editing, as is required by the article’s "controversial" template. I have discussed all of my edits, prior to making them. When a new user made an edit that I didn’t agree with, I reverted it, and asked him to use the talkpage; after the discussion, his arguments were better than mine, and he made the edit. There is a ton of material in the article that I disagree with in the article, but sometimes I win the discussion and they go, and sometimes I lose the discussion and they stay. And if anyone still thinks that I “own” the article, I volunteer for a 4 month long 1RR restriction in that article.

(2) Edit-Warring and hostility: as was previously pointed out to FutPerf, what was occurring in the article was not edit-warring but vandalism, and reverts of said vandalism. Despite 6 users pointing this out to FutPerf, all of whom are knowledgeable, long-term editors of the article, with a 2-4 pro-Georgian - pro-Russian split, FutPerf ignored our combined statements, and proceeded to claim edit-warring where none existed. Proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring.

(3) Threats: I challenge FutPerf to find a single threat that I made. Here is what FutPerf believes is a threat: "I am tired of you using these tactics. I won't hesitate to expose anymore of these tactics, the minute I see them. So don't use them." On the other hand FutPerf has been accused of making threats in our article, as is shown in the link above.

FutPerf claims that I was warned, in the above listed link and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Question_to_Arbcom:_2008_South_Ossetia_War However, in the latter link, ArbCom completely ignored FutPerf’s request; when a Court ignores a request, the status quo prevails, and no warning occurs.

I also fail to see why I am being punished per WP:DIGWUREN, considering that I had no knowledge of WP:DIGWUREN. FutPerf states that it applies to all Eastern European Articles, but FutPerf failed to mention it in both of his "warnings".

The edit that I am being topic-banned for can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2008_South_Ossetia_war&action=historysubmit&diff=324541357&oldid=324532032 Granted, it wasn’t my brightest move, and the joke at the end was in poor taste. Nevertheless, in my defense, the edit involved the title debates, which occupy, literally, over 100 pages; it’s where every point was argued and counter-argued at least several times.

It is also interesting to note that FurPerf topic-banned me shortly after I presented evidence for ArbCom, and that he made the "warning" in the article, shortly after FeelSunny and I spoke out in the ArbCom case, regarding the Cabal.

To summarize, I am being banned for something I did not do, by an administrator who is hostile towards me, using a policy I never heard of. I have no history of prior bans/blocks/warnings. Thus, I am appealing.

Quick Replies: The 2008 South Ossetia War isn't considered a toxic environment, nor ever was, unless one counts the period right after the war. If FurPerf would've read our responses to his "offer", he would have known that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring. I have less then 100 reverts that didn't address vandalism; the vandalism was admitted to, by the user whom I reverted.

Brief comments on whether appeals from discretionary sanctions should come to the committee or instead to the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard would also be useful ~ New York Brad

Because I don't want other editors to be bullied by an administrator, for something they didn't do, (I didn't "own" the article), by a hostile administrator (FutPerf), over a policy they didn't know about (WP:DIGWUREN).
Additionally what you see here is roughly half of all of the evidence that could be presented. This case can easily be finished within two weeks.

Statement by completely uninvolved Collect

This case offers a place where ArbCom can lay down specific limits on how individual administrators adjudicate cases on their own. This might include length limits, and limits as to the precise nature of restrictions placed by administrators which appear, in many cases, to be far greater than ArbCom allows to be imposed in cases decided by ArbCom. This might also include precise definitions of "broad support" (such as whether a fairly even split can be determined to be "broad support" for administrative action) for blocks and bans to preclude any unjust or rash actions by administrators. This might also include rulings on the nature of inter-administrator communication concerning topic bans and effective topic bans where such communications are not made public in any way. And this is a far less messy case than others which might have been declined by ArbCom in the past. With such possibilities for definitive action by ArbCom, I think this case ought be taken up, Collect (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To FPatS: ArbCom, as I understand it, can take a narrow case and make broader decisions. Complex cases, however, tend to become a labyrinth of arguments. Therefore, taking what appears to be a simple case to establish dicta for future use makes sense. Collect (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by completely uninvolved Taivo

I have noted recently an increasing occurrence of WP:DIGWUREN as a justification for this or that block/ban. When looking at that reference, however, it is unclear to this average Wikipedia editor what the Wikipedia policy is and how it relates to other articles beyond the specific Digwuren case. This would be an opportunity for ArbCom to define how Digwuren applies to Wikipedia as a whole and to direct that a clear policy statement be written. However, using ArbCom to circumvent the BRD cycle that might occur on a policy talk page seems rather extreme. But one aspect of this case points out that the Digwuren ruling's affect on Wikipedia as a whole needs to be clarified. (Taivo (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise

This is a fairly straightforward case of "discretionary sanction" application according to WP:DIGWUREN; as such, I don't see why it would warrant an Arbcom case. Of course, the sanction is open to review, and if the committee wants to take that review in hand (through the ban appeals subcommittee, presumably) they are free to do so; in that sense I mentioned Arbcom as one of the two formal options when I advised H.W. about venues of appeal. However, I believe a better place for such an appeal would in fact be the admin noticeboards – there is no point in Arbcom getting involved unless there is an indication that the admin community can't handle this. Which there isn't – I've had other DIGWUREN sanctions of mine discussed, upheld and later modified by admin consensus on WP:AE just the other day; the system works fine. If consensus should emerge that the topic ban was excessive, the admin community will work it out and I will not stand in their way.

For now, however, I fully stand behind this topic ban: HistoricWarrior007 has a history of a persistently hostile, very combative battleground attitude over that article, combined with nearly incessant slow revert-warring over many months. I have become convinced that his presence is the main factor that has made the talkpage of 2008 South Ossetia war an incredible toxic environment. The edit [50] was just the straw that broke the camel's back. His conduct here, with the aggressive claim that all those dozens (or hundreds, by now?) reverts of his were not revert-warring but removal of "vandalism", and his immediate assumptions of bad faith on my part, just illustrate the same problem. (Incidentally, it's ironic I was accused of being anti-EMLL when I sanctioned Jacurek (talk · contribs) the other day; now I'm being accused of being pro-EMLL because I happen to sanction somebody on the other side.)

The points raised by Collect in his statement, while valid in principle, are hardly applicable, because the discretionary sanctions rules do in fact already provide just that guidance he is asking for. Taivo's point boils down to a mere technicality about how to wikilink to the rules – the rules themselves (WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions) are perfectly clear. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Plus, obviously, opening a full case about a 2-months sanction only makes sense if there is a realistic prospect of getting the case finished in substantially less than those 2 months. Just sayin'. If HW wants his sanction lifted any time soon, he'd be better off with a faster process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: please note that a parallel appeal at WP:AE has now also been started, presumably making this one moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

This case request has been declined. As there is a majority of "decline" votes, ArbCom will not be opening this case. This request will be archived in 48 hours. Manning (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hounding of Tothwolf

Initiated by Jehochman Talk at 13:57, 7 November 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

While patrolling WP:ANI I stumbled across a complex multi-party dispute that has been festering for over a month. Tothwolf claims hounding, collusion and malicious deletion nominations by JBSupreme, Theserialcomma and Miami33139. Those parties claim Tothwolf is "delusional" (Miami33139's words). There appears to be intense rancor on all sides with regrettably breaches of decorum by at least two of the involved parties. If you read the linked discussions, you'll notice the paucity of uninvolved editors willing to brave the long screeds and flames. I believe arbitration would help resolve this problem. The parties need structure, and they need uninvolved parties willing to closely review a substantial body of evidence spanning multiple articles and multiple editors. We do not have any other process that would provide suitable resolution. ANI cannot repel drama of this magnitude. Jehochman Talk 14:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartaz: The parties chose not to engage in formal dispute resolution. Instead, they kept going to ANI, and their comments were so combative, no uninvolved parties want to get caught in the crossfire. RFC is good for disputes involving a single editor, but it cannot effectively handle a dispute where multiple editors are behaving badly. I do not think RFC could help at this point. It does not make sense to start four redundant RFC's that focus on the same events and patterns of behavior. It will be more efficient to hear a single arbitration case. Jehochman Talk 16:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephen Bain: It is not lazy (a regrettable personal attack by you against me) for an administrator to seek arbitration rather than imposing controversial sanctions. Some of the arbitrators have been notoriously wobbly about supporting administrators who undertake hard problems. I'm not keen to have a passel of disruptive editors swarm me with accusations of admin abuse if I try to put an end to their fun and games. After four ANI threads that did not generate any sort of consensus, what measure do you think might be workable in lieu of arbitration? Please do share with me what form of dispute resolution we have that is applicable to multiple users (RFC is only good for one) on an involuntary basis (mediation requires consent of all parties). Jehochman Talk 12:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Coren, thank you so much for offering to sit the parties down and guide them to RFC. I will watch carefully to see whether that works. No longer relevant. Jehochman Talk 03:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jéské Couriano

I will not say anything on this matter aside from this - Theserialcomma and Tothwolf have a history stretching back a few months; I've tried to amass enough diffs in a timely enough fashion for Tothwolf to use in any RFC/U, but after Theserialcomma butted into discussions I was having with a blocked user, I was obliged to try and disengage. -Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 14:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Miami33139

ArbCom does not need to hear this.

Jehochman brings this to ArbCom with a statement that there is no other process that can handle drama of this magnitude. On the contrary, this is not drama of high magnitude. This boils down to a simple case of ownership. In the AN/Incident yesterday I repeatedly asked Tothwolf, or any adminstrator, how one specific diff of a minor edit presented a case of harassment by myself of Tothwolf. After ten repeats of this one question, Tothwolf responded, showing he had made three minor edits to the article in question, eight months before, and in a different section of the list. He did not back down from his claim that these minor edits, on different sections, eight months apart, were harassing him. This is a ridiculous claim on its face.

ArbCom could break this entire incident up into that response from Tothwolf to understand this issue. Wikipedia does have processes that can deal with ownership and false claims of harassment, and that is for any administrator to actually act when they see such obvious displays. Bringing this case to ArbCom will certainly become drama of high magnitude, because there are a dozen more claimants to be heard where Tothwolf has screamed "HARASSMENT!" A simple glance at his talk page shows a years worth of complaints of his etiquette from many editors.

Tothwolf has shown that he believes minor edits separated by eight months are harassment of him. An ArbCom case where he will bring forth hundreds of such diffs, claiming they all harass him, will frustrate everyone to no end. These claims are ridiculous. Send this back to the administrators and tell one of them to figure out how minor edits separated by eight months harass anyone, and tell them to make an appropriate response based on their judgement. Miami33139 (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies by Miami33139

Reply to SoWhy and Elen of Roads
The necessity of blocking the lot of us would require at least some finding that each person did something wrong. Here is your chance. Review the diff below. If there is a credible rationale that the diff below harasses Tothwolf, I will leave the project. I have not commented at, towards, or in reply to Tothwolf in over a month. I have studiously avoided him. Other than followup to pre-existing discussions (where I still avoided any potential showing of conflict with him), I have not touched the precious set articles where he claims ownership. He still claims I am harassing him. His claims are preposterous. This does not require ArbCom attention at all. He says the diff below is part of my harassment. Show the harassment at that diff and I will leave Wikipedia. I want no part of a project so ridiculous that eight months between minor edits on different sections can be harassment. Miami33139 (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply 2, to Elen

This is not a case of content. The base issue here is behavior. An RFC about content would not resolve any issue in a timely manner. Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) has been discussed for several years and has yet to come to good agreements.

  1. The base issue here is behavior.
  2. Tothwolf claims harassment.
  3. Tothwolf provided the diff below as evidence of harassment.
  4. Does the diff below show harassment? Yes or No?

My defense of this claim of harassment is that Tothwolf's claim plainly lacks evidence. Secondarily, I counter that Tothwolf's repeated false claims constitute an attack on myself, a claim backed up by the WP:NPA policy that repeated claims about behavior that lack evidence are attacks. So the diff below is not out of context or pointless. Tothwolf provided this as evidence. Does it provide evidence or not? You are saying that we all deserve some sort of sanction. A sanction has to be backed up by evidence. I have acted, in the last month, as if I did have sanctions. I have studiously avoided direct engagement of Tothwolf. Yet, here I am, still being accused of harassment. If we were under sanctions, and Tothwolf asked for me to be blocked, would you block me based on this evidence provided?

The Diff that can settle the whole thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_portable_software&diff=prev&oldid=324167183

If any Arbitrator can show me how that diff harasses Tothwolf I will leave the project. No need to open the case. If there is no explanation of how that diff harasses Tothwolf, you know what kind of non-evidence you will get if you open the case. Miami33139 (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by theserialcomma

Reply to Jeske Couriano: i've asked jeske couriano repeatedly to leave me alone. his responses have been some of the following: "slot off, fragface. You are not the victim under any circumstance, TSC" and "chummer, shut the frag up", "i am on your ass" "i am 100% disgusted by your behavior towards me", tothwolf is innocent, go after Theserialcomma, i will block you and seek a ban against you for harassing tothwolf. these are just some of the things jeske has said to me, always in relation to tothwolf. i know they collude on irc, and jeske's harassing me to help out his irc friend (tothwolf). but his behavior towards me is atrocious and completely unbecoming of an admin. everything jeske says to me is vile, and he's insistent on harassing me. tothwolf's failure to assume good faith and canvassing IRC are obvious. see User:Mikaey/Tothwolf for an admin's take on this. This deleted page, by the way, is why jeske went to Mikaey's page to tell him 'Theserialcomma is tothwolf's agent provocateur. if you are going after tothwolf, you should go after TSC instead'. Mikaey's response was that Most of the stuff I documented predates their interactions. . Later on at a WQA, Mikaey went on to write FWIW, Tothwolf does have a history of crying "wolf" whenever anyone does something to an article that he doesn't like. If he has ever touched the article, it suddenly turns into "wikihounding", when those users had no such intentions. I think Tothwolf has thrown the words "wikistalking" and "wikihounding" around more than anyone else I've come across on WP. Tothwolf always manages to avoid any sort of rebuff for his actions, because he always manages to paint the user he is after as the bad guy. This instance is just another in a chain of continued behavior which I find completely unhelpful and inappropriate for a Wikipedia user. Honestly, it needs to stop. Yesterday.

here is another gem where jeske goes out of his way to harass me. another editor had a semi attack subpage about me, which i nominated for deletion. jeske suddenly showed up, out of nowhere, having no business on that AFD, just to vote 'keep' on an attack page about me. Can someone tell this guy to stay away from me? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:McJeff/BlockLog

Question by uninvolved Spartaz

Has it now become a tradition to skip the RFC and go straight to arbitration these days? Seems to be a worrying recent trend & is not for the good. Spartaz Humbug! 15:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Elen of the Roads

I have seen every one of those go by at ANI and concur that the ANI noticeboard was entirely unsuited as a venue to untangling the mess. My perception is that the root cause is a different view of the importance/notability of a class of topics, and the problem has mushroomed because all the editors have preferred to make things personal, rather than hold discussions with the possibility of a compromise view. Given this, and given all of the editors outright refusal to engage in any form of DR, I would have thought the other option available is to block all of them until such time as they agree to (a) stop accusing each other of the seven deadly sins and (b) agree to some form of mediation regarding the topic group. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Miami33139

There are a lot more diffs in this case than that one, so your question appears entirely pointless. If all of you could for a moment put aside your accusations of each other, and establish what is the basis of your disagreement about editing the encyclopaedia (because there is one, and I would say it's to do with how notable some topics are, and how they should be handled), this can be settled with an RFC on the subject, and all of you (a) agreeing to abide by it, and (b) agreeing not to flame each other all the time. ArbCom won't look at who is right or wrong with regard to content. They will only look at your behaviour, and from what I've seen will have no option but to sanction the lot of you.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved SoWhy

The ANI reports demonstrates two reasons why arbitration is the most reasonable next step:

  1. The users named by the filing party have demonstrated repeatedly that they are completely unwilling to consider that they might be incorrect. While RFC has not been tried here, we already know that those editors are unwilling to reflect on their conduct voluntarily from their comments in both ANI reports.
  2. The community has demonstrated their lack of willingness to resolve the situation in those ANI reports as well and there is no reason to believe that they will act different if an RFC is attempted. The first ANI report was even taken to its own subpage where it was left and ignored afterwards. I tried to raise the matter again but no one commented further. The second ANI report demonstrates an equal lack of willingness to handle the situation.

For those reasons, I think RFC, while not tried before, would be unproductive in this special case since it requires a certain level of willingness to communicate with the opposite parties and to reflect on one's behavior. I cannot see such a willingness to exist in this case no matter how much good faith I am willing to assume, so I would urge ArbCom to take this case to resolve this conflict which the community demonstrated to be unable to resolve. Regards SoWhy 22:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Stephen Bain
Per WP:RFAR/G#PRIOR, a request can be directly accepted without prior steps of dispute resolution if the filing party explains why those steps would likely be pointless and fruitful. As Jehochman has explained in it's opening statement, the community has already demonstrated that it's unwilling and/or unable to resolve the dispute themselves. Furthermore, all involved editors have demonstrated their unwillingness to talk to each other or to consider that they might be incorrect in any way. But all steps of dispute resolution before arbitration require that the editors involved are willing to resolve the dispute or at least that they are willing to listen to neutral third-parties. Since Jehochman has laid out why other steps prior to arbitration would be insufficient to resolve the problem (as have I), I think it's inappropriate to imply that directly requesting arbitration is based on the laziness of the filing party. Regards SoWhy 13:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tothwolf

Each of the three editors (Theserialcomma, Miami33139, JBsupreme) have a history of harassing and "hounding" other editors and I've unfortunately become their latest target.

Theserialcomma has been party to a number of AN/I discussions and has previously been blocked due to baiting and their behaviour. They also have a history of abusing COI/N and SPI and making false allegations towards others.

Miami33139's last target was User:Ed Fitzgerald, who finally left Wikipedia due to constant hounding. Miami33139 tended to follow Ed Fitzgerald to remove his edits (since Ed Fitzgerald left, Miami33139 continues bulk remove large numbers of his edits).

JBsupreme has a very long history of making personal attacks towards others, especially in his edit summaries. These often contain vulgar language in all caps and have earned him a number of warnings from administrators and other editors.

On an individual basis, each of these editors has embarked on a campaign of wikihounding. It seems as though they are doing this as a form of "retribution" due to my work on other articles at AfD and for tagging prodded articles for the WP:COMP deletion workflow.

Within approximately the last two months, these three editors began engaging in collusion and meatpuppetry. This has taken place both with articles I've edited that they've AfD'd, as well as other articles that they would individually nominate for deletion. They've also used these same tactics against editors involved in other AfD discussions.

Between about September 25th and October 1st they began a campaign of mass AfD/XfD nominations in what appears to have been an attempt to draw the focus off the larger issue at AN/I, which by in large worked as the behavioural issue discussion was derailed. Many other editors at the time also felt their behaviour was harmful to the project. This is largely detailed on AN/I here.

I feel as though I've tried pretty much everything else possible to resolve this situation short of either leaving the project (such as what User:Ed Fitzgerald did and something I've been considering) or having ArbCom review this issue. I've tried taking this to AN/I without resolution and individual administrators have mostly suggested I collect diffs and document things. I really feel as though the community has failed me and left me out in the cold with no way to defend myself against the harassment from these three individuals. I will admit that dealing with these three editors has at times been rather stressful and at times I've made some comments I wouldn't have likely made otherwise, but by in large I've attempted to deal with each encounter without making things worse.

While I personally feel these editors' contribs and the diff links provided in the AN/I discussions above make this an easy WP:DUCK case, I understand that others who have not witnessed these behaviours first hand may not be able to see the issue in the same way without first having spent a considerable amount of time reviewing contribs and diffs.

--Tothwolf (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Elen of the Roads

It has more to do with the wikihouding and meatpuppetry behaviours than anything related to the notability of individual topics. The mass-AfD campaign initiated by these individuals which mainly took place around September 25th to October 1st seems to have clouded the issue and taken the focus off the behavioural issues. I would not expect any editor to simply ignore the ongoing behaviours of these three editors which includes the monitoring of contribs to "stalk" and follow behind to initiate AfD processes for articles I edit. As I mention above, this seems to be done as "retribution" for my work on improving other articles or bringing up these editors' behavioural issues on AN/I. These behaviours from these three editors seems to be in direct conflict with how the community expects editors to behave and this behaviour is still ongoing as of this very moment.

I currently feel as though I am unable to edit articles in mainspace and I am questioning why I'm even still attempting to be productive here while these behaviours are ongoing. Vandalism reverts, typo corrections, or attempts at article expansion or improvement seem to lead to one of these three editors nominating that article for AfD, often with at least one of the other three editors following to the same AfD. It should also be noted that none of these three editors edited articles in these topic areas at all prior to the wikihouding. Since the wikihouding campaign began, these editors have attempted to involve themselves in more related AfDs or make minor edits to related articles in an attempt to have this stuff "blend in" with their other contribs.

As documented in the wikitable included in the very long AN/I thread linked above (which could stand to be updated), the wikihouding and following of my edits stretched across a wide variety of topics and would even occur when I merely !voted in an existing AfD or tagged an AfD'd article for the WP:COMP deletion workflow. In those cases, usually at least two of these editors would jump into that AfD because they were following my contribs (which two seemed to vary but it was usually two). I'm really not sure how these patterns could be presented to make them any more obvious.

The problem with wikihouding at AfD is also compounded by the fact that they would intentionally make bogus arguments and even outright lie in an attempt to discredit both myself and others. Numerous times I would cite a book as a reference and one of these editors would claim the book didn't actually say what it said or didn't contain what it actually contained.

--Tothwolf (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaxthos

I haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. To the best of my knowledge, I have never interacted with you outside of Wikipedia and if you have actual, verifiable evidence of any "off-wiki stalking and harassment" from myself I would ask that you present it instead of making baseless ad hominem claims. Furthermore, your continued [51] claims of canvassing and votestaking are beginning to get very close to libel territory.

I personally don't really care what sort of disputes you've had with others surrounding all the controversy with bash.org and the volunteer userbase leaving the site and I have absolutely no connection with your bash.org troubles or connections with any of the other online quote database sites that you seem to have a strong dislike for.

As far as I'm aware, the only major interaction I've ever had with Blaxthos was with this AfD. It was well documented there that Blaxthos had a very direct conflict of interest with articles related to bash.org and "competing" online quote database sites, many of which he nominated for AfD and others where he played a significant role during the AfD process.

--Tothwolf (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I'm technically inactive and I haven't looked at this request, but despite this, I want to note 2 things that may be relevant. (1) It is difficult to conduct a community discussion due to the fashion in which Tothwolf structures some of his comments. Regardless of the outcome of this request, can someone please please PLEASE teach/tell/make Tothwolf to habitually sign directly after his comment and get out of the habit of putting a signature 2 lines later? It's possibly fine during a statement, but it's impossibly distracting (and off-putting) during threaded discussions, be it at AN, ANI or talk pages, and there's only so much I'm ready to do in formatting at such discussions. (2) See Sept. ANI - particularly section 1.8.1 onwards. The discussion did not reach a conclusion as users kept bringing up more things later. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Juliancolton

I encourage ArbCom to accept this case. I've followed the activity related to the dispute over recent weeks and though I've remained entirely uninvolved, to the best of my knowledge, I don't see how an RFC will help in this case. Certain parties have violated behavioral restrictions on several occasions, and once a debate fails to resolve itself following several ANI threads, a review by the committee is likely the best way forward. Essentially agree with SoWhy and a couple others. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved editor Blaxthos who had past interaction with Tothwolf

While not a party to this particular action in any form or fashion, I would like to add that I personally have been the victim of off-wiki stalking and harassment from Tothwolf based on an article content disagreement. I have witnessed him attempt to votestack and canvass, and have received threatening emails and messenger communications from him and his IRC pals. I also received notes from several notes from other uninvolved editors warning me not to get involved with Tothwolf at all due to their experiences with his harassment. While none of this is evidence of anything germane to this proceeding, it should serve as a cautionary tale when assessing the proper level of good faith and benefit of the doubt accorded to Tothwolf. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

This case has been accepted by ArbCom and will be formally opened shortly Manning (talk) 04:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/1/0/0)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=325845663"