Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[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

Clarification and Amendment requests

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)	8 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Attachment theory

• KingsleyMiller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Martinp23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• CWii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by User:KingsleyMiller

There is an unofficial policy operating in Wikipedia which condones the use of bad language ie swearing. The Wikipedia Administrator with the user name Martinp23 used the F word whilst editing (LINK). Wikipedia Administrators do not have special privileges and if other Editors can see Martinp23 get away with this form of intimidation they will feel there is nothing to stop them from doing so also. In this case the Editor with the user name CWii felt free to follow suit (LINK). CWii followed this with a warning to me about my behaviour on my user page (LINK). Martinp23 has also made comments about 'banging heads together' and that he knows this 'sort of dispute'(LINK). For somebody sitting on the Wikipedia Mediation Committee to make such comments without knowing the facts of the case is inappropriate.

I am asking the Arbitration Committee to decide that Martinp23 and CWii be restricted from any discussion in which I am also involved as well as any other sanction that may be appropriate. If no sanction is deemed necessary I should like the policy of swearing to be formally adopted by Wikipedia so that individual Editors may be prepared to know what to expect when they challenge the established status quo.

(cur) (last) 15:32, 27 May 2008 Martinp23 (Talk | contribs) (97,679 bytes) (what the ---- is going on here? mediation started or not? I suggest you make your minds up) (undo)

(cur) (last) 15:53, 27 May 2008 CWii (Talk | contribs) (109,684 bytes) (?Martinp23 - Swearing: ------------------- look mommy i sweared!) (undo)

KingsleyMiller (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

AddendumKingsleyMiller (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC) This comment is made in the light of the statements made below

I am involved in an ongoing and complex dispute involving the veracity of the research used to justify claims made about child development in the Wikipedia pages. There are many editors involved, yet very few, if any, understand my concerns. Although Martinp23 claims his comment was not aimed at me but in the CABAL page he has also advised me 'strongly' and suggested 'harsher' action. He is an Administrator so he must know that in order to resolve a dispute it is imperative that there is a level playing field. By swearing in this way and adopting his stance towards me without knowing the true significance of the dispute he has deprived me of a fair hearing because other members of the CABAL now know his feelings. I have received no apology from CWii, a supporter of Martinp23, and as far as I can tell he or she sees nothing wrong with swearing and feels happy to continue presumably with the backing of Martinp23. Martinp23 has damaged the ongoing discussion by making my own position even more difficult as the statements below show. I also feel that because he has made his feelings known he has made his position untenable and therefore I should be grateful if the Arbitration Committee do not exclude him and CWii from the discussion then these two individuals should recuse themselves.

To put it simply how can I expect a fair hearing when threats have already been made against me in this way by an Administrator?

Addendum2

I have received the following message and I will be happy if the Administrator will give a formal undertaking not to participate further at all in the discussions in which I am also involved, if this is agreeable to the Arbitration Committee?

"It is fully my intention to leave that medcab page as soon as I see a mediation get started, if it helps. Martinp23 23:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)"

However I have received no apology from CWii for his or her attacks upon me on the (1) CABAL page, (2)editing and on my (3) user page and I would still request the Arbitration Committee restrict him or her from contributing from any discussion I am involved with. Instead they have sought to repeat the profanity and ridicule myself.KingsleyMiller (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Martinp23

I understand that the MedCom privilege doesn't extend to the MedCab, but I feel that any comments I were to make here summarising the wider dispute before coming onto my use of a swear word would jeopardise the progress of the mediation, perhaps by polluting the water between the participants. So I won't be making further comment here for now. Martinp23 09:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel compelled to say *something*. Immediately when Kingsley noted that he didn't appreciate my use of a swear word, I apologised on the medcab page. The next I see is this RfArb. After leaving the comment above, I went an made a further apolgoy to Kingsley for any offence caused to him. The exact swearing phrase used, for those who might not have looked for whatever reason, was "what the fuck is going on here?". It appeared in an edit summary when I was commenting out a notice I'd written, when I realised the futility of the idea. Frustration over such things is natural, and if I was swearing at anyone I was swearing at myself. Now, I could perhaps have phrased that differently, and will certainly resolve to ensure that I am very careful with my phraseology when dealing with Kingsley in the future. However, in my eyes it constitutes neither a violation of WP:CIVIL nor one of WP:NPA -- I see it as a non-issue altogether now, given my dual apologies. Thanks, Martin 16:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If my comment /is/ considered incivil, please do tell me and explain why. Martinp23 16:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by CWii

I've never been ion an ArbCom before :-). Unfortunately I am in school to I cannot comment further until later. Sorry, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 13:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Well, um, I really don't know what to say :-). So I'll say my mind. The ArbCom case is a bit of an overreaction IMO. My comments were made to back up a fellow wikipedian. There really isn't a policy violation here. I mean really, if there should be a policy about saying the f-word a few times, then there should be a policy about using CAPS LOCK all the time also :P. We must remember that we are all volunteers here, so you should be patient and not tell others that their knowledge is insufficient to help. I hope this covers it. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Martinp isn't part of ArbCom. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I like numbered lists too!

1. I never attacked
2. Anyone can send you messages. And that was friendly advice. WP:AGF please!
3. So you want to be to not be part of any discussion of yours? That's pretty silly.

And btw, I'm a he :-) CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement of uninvolved Messedrocker

The use of casual profanity should not be a big deal, contingent that parties are fine with it. KingsleyMiller is clearly not fine with it, and that in this particular instance it should cease. The usage does not appear to be for the purpose of intimidation (as in, "Generic Person, you're a f---ing tool.") but casual, so the reason for the case is strictly due to disdain with profanities. To avoid a declaration of war over a four-letter expletive, it would be a fine idea for Martin to apologize and Kingsley to hopefully forgive him. MessedRocker (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Steve Crossin

I first came across this case when I was looking for a case to mediate. I first saw this and removed it, as there was no content removals, ever. I feel there's an issue here, but I don't feel it's Martin. They seem unclear on how mediation works [1][2]. No user is an "authority" over another on Wikipedia. When I expressed an interest in the case, I was told that my 2 years studying Psychology was insufficient to mediate the case. They have requested pages be deleted if they aren't changed to their view, shouted at users, assuming bad faith, and so on. Additionally, as Martin pointed out, our role is mediators is to be a neutral third party [3], and this user felt that any mediator that didn't see from their point of view was duped.[4][5] All I see the issue here is a mediator who is fed up. True, I wouldn't have sworn in an edit summary myself, but after showing the diffs above, I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, so to speak, and I feel arbitration here is unnecessary. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 14:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved WilyD

It may be worth noting that in My RfA, it was pointed out on the first day that swearing exists in my edit summaries, and perhaps one person felt this was a little sketchy for an admin. Other "community opinions" may exist on the subject, but it seems at least one "sample of those who showed up" felt it was acceptable to swear on occasion. WilyD 15:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved WBOSITG

(This is the first time I have participated in a request for arbitration, so apologies for any mistakes.) There is little, if any, reason to include a third party in this scuffle. And a scuffle it appears to be; no real involving argument has gone on. This issue could easily be solved between the two users; it appears that the issue is an uncensored edit summary. Two policies could cover this entire "dispute": Wikipedia is not censored, and no personal attacks, the latter of which has not been violated with the edit summary. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Statment from Fainites

Having looked at the diffs, the edit summary "what the fuck is going on here" is attached to a notice to everybody about too much discussion going on on the referral page. Its not addressed to any one person and in the circumstances, given the then state of the mediation page, seems like fair comment. As for CWii - taking the micky out of Kingsleys overeaction to Martins edit summary must have been very tempting. However, considering Kingsley Miller has relentlessly and repeatedly accused everyone else (thats the other two parties, myself and JeanMercer, a 3PO person, two mediators and two admins) of, variously, bad faith, ignorance or being dupes, when he referred the matter for mediation, its not surprising things got slightly out of hand.Fainites ^barley 20:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from AGK

My recommendation here is to reject this case. One, isolated instance of an editor utilising expletives certainly does not warrant an arbitration case. Whilst it isn't ideal conduct, and should probably be avoided, in the context of the links provided, the use of profanity was not for disruptive purposes. Rather, it was used, from my reading of the evidence, at least, to illustrate a point from an editorial point of view, and did not have disruptive intention.

The matter clearly does not warrant a Committee hearing, and the mere action of filing a request for them to arbitrate this matter is something of an overreaction. If anything, any serious profanity should be (if not ignored, or if not taken as it was meant–ie., not as abuse) should be forwarded to wikiquette alerts, or, if necessary, to the attention of an administrator, either directly, or at a general noticeboard, such as the incidents 'board.

To address a side issue raised in the filing party's statement, arbitration is not an appropriate forum to have a guideline prohibiting profanity "formally adopted by Wikipedia". The Committee is a judicial body, not a legislative one, and by and large, any adjustments to policy should be made through editorial and community discussion. Of course, as profanity is often incivil, such an adjustment may be minor to such a degree that the Committee could authorise it to be made, but it would not be prudent here, in my opinion.

Anthøny 16:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from User:Kendrick7

I think Jean-Luc Picard said it best.[6] Or, to play on that theme, as Socrates once commented: the next generation is going to the dogs. Everyone should try and maintain the decorum of being among polite company regardless, and save the swearing for other internet fora whenever possible. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Notified submitted he needs to provide diffs proving he notified the parties. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

• Reject, I see no prior attempts to solve the issue. What is more Wikipedia:Civility should (nearly) say it all. Profanity that is incivil is not condoned - it infringes basic editor conduct policy. (Ditto if language used is in any way harassing.) Consistent incivility is actionable. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Reject, premature. Kirill ^(prof) 00:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Decline. Paul August ☎ 04:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Decline. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Clarifications and other requests

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[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

Clarification and Amendment requests

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)	8 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds

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

• Theresa knott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator) [7]
• SevenOfDiamonds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [8]

Statement by User:Kendrick7

I am fully in favor of giving the editor formerly known as User:SevenOfDiamonds amnesty. He has been a fine, if illegal, contributor under the guise of User:I Write Stuff for two and a half months, and was only caught out again because he was over zealously defending another user from rather tenuous charges of sockpuppetry very similar to the case under which he himself was banned, which seems a noble gesture if anything. Prior to this he used other accounts, which have also been blocked for no reason other than being the supposed sock of an indef blocked editor who once upon a time threatened the project with wanton disruption.

None of those accounts carried out the threats of the editor who ArbCom ruled he was a sock of:

• NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zer0faults (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All along this editor has contributed to the project constructively, with all of one 3RR block. Block logs:

• SixOfDiamonds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SevenOfDiamonds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• N4GMiraflores (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• I Write Stuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Grimlight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JessicaRamos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And additionally has created 42 articles:

Revolutionary Committee of Puerto Rico, COCEI, Rodolfo Fierro, Narciso Bassols, Movimiento de Liberation National, Genaro Vázquez Rojas, Elvia Carrillo Puerto, Demetrio Vallejo, Arturo Lona Reyes, Adolfo Christlieb Ibarrola, Andrés Molina Enríquez, Miguel Caro-Quintero, Sonora Cartel, Los Negros, Edgar Valdez Villarreal, Sinaloa Cartel, Agustín Casasola, Heraclio Bernal, Luis Amezcua Contreras, Jesus Amezcua Contreras, Adán Amezcua Contreras, Colima Cartel, Juan José Esparragoza Moreno, Ernesto Fonseca Carrillo, Javier Barba-Hernandez, Héctor Luis Palma Salazar, Mariana Grajales Coello, Ponciano Arriaga, Don Pedro Jaramillo, Salvador Nava Martínez, Jose Antonio Llama, Mario Montoya Uribe, Zapata Swamp, Zapata Wren, BINCI, Harold Bedoya Pizarro, Colombian presidential election, 1998, Zapata Sparrow, Luis Hernando Gómez Bustamante, Polaris (poker bot), Juan Carlos Ramirez-Abadia, Carlos Alberto Rentería Mantilla.

Hopefully this shows that he is not the disruptive editor he was accused of being. He would like to return to writing articles without the stigma attached and the constant on the run article creation. It's completely unclear, beyond reasons of personal egos of certain involved administrators, why this block continues. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to User:Merzbow, I'm uncertain whether sneaking back into the project and being a productive wikipedian is necessarily less respectful of the project than sitting on the sidelines moping for some indefinite period per WP:IAR. Having to constantly look over his shoulder for the INS for the past year seems punishment enough. Insisting he sit out now just seems WP:POINTy, and while he went a ways overboard with the G33 case, the history here makes it obvious why that case pushed his buttons. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to User:Horologium, there's been scant evidence of actual disruption, certainly none which ever rose to the level of a blockable offense apparently. Even the original ArbCom ruling made no finding that SevenOfDiamonds had in fact been disruptive, despite the arguments and evidence given in the case by certain editors of opposite political views. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In reply to User:B, yes, an apology would be great, but it's uncertain what SevenOfDiamonds is supposed to apologize for, since he continues to maintain he's not NuclearUmpf; Mr. N.U. could be on a beach in Tahiti trolling 4chan on his laptop and not be about to apologize for anything. Insisting SoD confess that's he's this other guy and apologize for that guy's behavior seems a bit of a two + two = five situation. People with life sentences make the worst prisoners; therefore, if it's solely a matter of doubt at to whether or not we've managed to properly break his spirit, at the very least the block should be shortened to some value of time less than infinity, so he can comply with the ban with some reasonable expectation of eventual re-admittance (even with certain restrictions) to the community. I sincerely believe that's in the best interest of the project. -- Kendrick7^talk there are four lights! 02:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In reply to User:Rlevse, I wholeheartedly agree that the community should cease wasting time with this, and I suggest some sort of amendment to the case would quite exactly make that possible. What we need to ask ourselves is whether, as our critics claim, wikipedia is about power tripping and WP:DRAMA or whether, as I secretly hope, it is about writing an encyclopedia. Because, despite our best efforts, that's what SevenOfDiamonds keeps doing -- writing an encyclopedia. And we need to face the reality that it's unlikely we will be able to successfully stop this behavior; we're just not getting through to this guy that our critics are right. Please raise your hand if you want to be preventing him from doing this for the next forty or so years because I think that's the true waste of time. As the lyrics of the one hit song by The Refreshments, "Banditos" says:[9]

So give your ID card to the border guard

Your alias says you're Captain John Luc Picard

Of the United Federation of Planets

Cause they won't speak English any ways

He'll make a few dozen articles, we'll figure him out again, and the process will repeat. -- Kendrick7^talk you didn't think I'd get that third Picard reference in did ya? 03:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Bigtimepeace

I was contacted by SevenofDiamonds about this on my talk page and will comment here. SoD contests the findings at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds that they were a sock of ZeroFaults/NuclearUmpf. That's fine, but that was the ArbCom's decision, and quite frankly I don't think we should rehash it here. Rather than focus on whether or not SoD is ZF/NU, we should focus on the behavior of the user SevenofDiamonds and consider their request for an unblock.

I would support that request with some conditions. There is no doubt that SoD has written dozens of articles and thus contributed constructively to the encyclopedia. However they have also been mixed up in a number of rather contentious disputes centered around Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. Indeed this article (and perhaps some related ones) have been the source of all of SoD's troubles. That user has engaged in some uncivil behavior in the past (see here for example, and there might be some stuff under the account I Write Stuff, but nothing egregious unless I'm missing something). I would suggest that it would be reasonable for SevenofDiamonds to agree to the following as a condition of an unblock:

1. Indefinite topic ban on Allegations of state terrorism by the United States and related articles (defined as articles to which the dispute from the main article has carried over, such as Guatemalan Civil War. SoD may feel their behavior was not disruptive enough to warrant a topic ban, but given that this is an unblock request and that this article has been the source of trouble this seems reasonable.
2. No interaction with User:MONGO, who presented the evidence at the original arbitration case. It's possible that this should be extended to other users as well (perhaps User:DHeyward), but at the least SoD should stay away from MONGO and articles he edits.
3. SoD picks one account, informs ArbCom of it, and agrees to edit only with that account. Other accounts would remain blocked.
4. I assume all of this would be logged at the original arbitration page, and perhaps a link to that would be necessary at SoD's user page so that editors and admins know the situation should future problems come up.

There might be other necessary conditions but this seems like a reasonable start. Violation of any of the terms would lead to another indef block. It seems obvious that SoD will continue to maintain that they are not ZF/NU, so asking them to admit to that will be a non-starter. Maybe they really are, or maybe ArbCom got it wrong. Like I said it perhaps does not actually make much difference either way. SoD likes to write articles and I'm fine with unblocking to let them do that, so long as they completely avoid the areas which have got them into trouble in the past (if the user is going to keep writing articles no matter what, it seems silly to make them post the articles on my talk page). The committee could even say they still stand by the decision in the SevenOfDiamonds case that the user is NuclearUmpf, but so long as the user agrees to stick to one account, avoid problem areas, and not cause disruption they can be unblocked and allowed to contribute. These are just initial ideas and there might well be other issues to consider. I have no idea if SevenofDiamonds is agreeable to these terms or not because we have not discussed this issue, the user just informed me of this request via a talk page message and I am apparently here as a "friendly" party.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Merzbow, I would not really have a problem with a waiting period but don't know what we gain by holding off for 6 months. If anything it makes more sense to have SoD agree to the above terms (and perhaps others) now rather than just letting them create more new accounts which could be disruptive. We should think in terms of what's actually workable. If we can find an agreement that lets SoD contribute but keeps them out of troubled areas then why not do it now? And we should definitely add William M. Connolley, yourself, and anyone else who wants to the list of people SoD should keep away from (within reason of course, we can't have a list of 20 people and I think it would only be a handful anyway - I think basically just a few people from the US State Terrorism article). Also if SoD was causing disruption in 9/11 articles a topic ban there would be justified as well. In general I'm quite open to broadening the restrictions I mention above.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I would add that, while I don't know if it was intentional or not, I find it amusing that SoD has created 42 articles. Given the popularity of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy here at Wikipedia that should surely count for something.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Merzbow

I urge ArbCom to reject this motion for now. It is true that IWS/Seven can contribute good content, but he also cannot stop the disrupting and harassing activity that got him banned in the first place: see this ANI thread for an overview of examples of both during the Giovanni33 ArbCom case; he also has a vendetta against WMC, starting an RFC here, then following WMC to an article IWS has never edited to revert-war against him ([10], [11]), then warning WMC here; etc. His unwillingness to respect a legally imposed ArbCom remedy and instead sockpuppet prolifically also does not bode well for his ability to work within the community. My advice to him is to stay away for six months to a year to show his respect for this community, then appeal for a second chance, which must come in conjunction with a topic ban for the areas that he only disrupts and never contributes to (i.e. articles on U.S. foreign policy and 9/11), plus a ban on interaction with those he's harassed (i.e. Mongo, me, to start). Yes, basically BTP's remedies, but not now, because that would be a reward for his deception, disruption and socking. He needs to take a long time-out first.

To BTP: 9/11 was in reference to actions under the NuclearUmpf account, which was infamous for pushing conspiracy theories in that area; some SoD's early edits did the same. Anyways, we don't give into blackmail here. A threat to continue to create new accounts "unless" should not be met by capitulation, because then every other banned user is going to feel it's OK. The bottom line is that via his actions, he has already shown he does not feel the rules of the community apply to him, so why should we give him a second chance until he can demonstrate otherwise by, you know, not sockpuppeting for a while? - Merzbow (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

I've not seen positive contributions by this editor which would outweigh the immense amount of time wasted in dealing with his independently disruptive socks. I'm also not clear on why we should condone the admitted evasion of an ArbCom-imposed ban, particularly when the editor in question continues to rationalize his ban evasion and deny any fault whatsoever. So User:I Write Stuff managed to edit constructively for one whole month before lapsing into disruptiveness. Have we sunk to the point where that's exceptionally praiseworhty? Editors able to contribute useful content without repeatedly running afoul of basic policy are not so rare that we need to waste more time on this. But admittedly, I'm grouchy at the moment since the USA lost 2-nil to England, so take that with a grain of salt. MastCell ^Talk 22:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Horologium

I would strongly recommend that the arbitrators reject this appeal. The almost continuous disruption caused by this account (under many names, the two most recent being User:I Write Stuff and User:SevenOfDiamonds) far, far outweighs the positive contributions. Sockpuppetry (especially of a particularly disruptive nature, as is the case here) is not something that can be excused, and allowing this user another chance opens the door to appeals of a similar nature. Does anyone really want to have to deal with JB196, WordBomb, LBHS Cheerleader, Pwok, Grawp, or any of many abusive sockpuppeteers asking for another chance, citing this as precedent? Horologium (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Giovanni33

It is reasonable to unblock this user. He has proven himself a net positive to the project through content creation, and I've seen many positive contributions. See his cooperative statement and evidence of his valuable contributions:[12]At a minimum, 42 excellent articles created by this user refutes those who claim, "no positive contributions." These many contributions are not negated by the possibility that may have been NuclearUmf in the past, and made poor choices then that led to him being banned back then. In so far as this possibility is true, it's only relevant to the extent that he replicates the problematic behaviors. He has not. At the very least his current conduct under the new accounts should weigh a lot more than previous conduct, if the original problems are no longer evident; he may not be perfect but he is certainly a lot better than many other established editors who we are not sanctioning in any manner. Thus, it's also a matter of equal protection and fairness for me, as well as pragmatic reasons. Ironically the "disruption" stems from the fact of his 'illegal' status here: it's the de jure insistence that he remain blocked and what follows from that fact, against his de-facto unblocked status that is the source of disruption. It is therefore counter productive in light of his actual positive contributions, which he will continue to make, and wants to make, no matter what. Administrative decisions, if they are in the best interest of the project, must be flexible and look at the bottom line: what is best for the project? Even if we believe that he was the indef.banned user (Nuclear), the new accounts were only banned on the basis of asserting such a link.

Also, if he is telling the truth about his original blocking based on mistaken socket-puppet conclusions, then I certainly can relate to that, and give him credit for proving himself loyal to the project inspite and despite the rules. It's a classic and ultimate case of IAR being put into practice. That is an area that is problematic, but the best way to deal with it is to make an evaluation on pragmatic grounds (what IAR was meant for).

Lastly, I want to point out that SevenOfDiamonds was not indef.blocked/banned by his Arbcom case. In fact, arbcom, in their wisdom, did NOT proscribe any remedy. They simply concluded that given the standard of 'more likely than not," one account was the other. They did not feel a need to issue any restrictions, or take any punitive measures. It was up to any admin to either feel a block was then warranted, or for him to be left in peace to edit. At this state, I agree with BTP, that it doesn't matter if SOD was Nuclear or not, or how likely he was, etc. Conditions should be ratified so as to codify a situation with the aim of minimizing as much disruption as possible while maximizing the positive. To me this means an unblock, perhaps with conditions, and for his opponents to reciprocate in abstaining from any uncivil interaction against him moving forward. If he wants to write articles, then who are we to stop him? To do so is to elevate form above substance, to raise the letter of the law above its spirit. Given the possibility that he should never have been banned in the first place, to continue to want him blocked no matter what strikes me as an irrational fetish of the rules for the sake of the rules.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to User:B. It is true he was circumventing a ban but notice he was doing it to prove a positive point, not a negative one, i.e. not to defy or disrespect arbcom or their authority, but to prove he was not disruptive as claimed, but a valuable contributor so he could make an appeal to them afterwards. Note he explains his reasons here, that he intended to request for the appeal afterwards, and does so now:[13]. This is not an act of a vandal/defiant rogue element that needs to be stomped out at all costs. Quite the contrary. Each case must be looked at concretely on its own merits so that does not give a green light to just anyone doing this; it goes without saying its risky at best. But intentions seem clear here and I feel intentions do count, even if it was flawed tactically.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:B

I am completely uninvolved in this case and only tangentially followed it. I encourage arbcom to reject it because it would reward circumventing a ban. If a banned user abides by the ban, then apologizes for whatever issues led to their ban, and promises not to repeat their transgressions, then I'm all for second chances. But someone who does not abide by the terms of the ban and gets caught socking should not be permitted to return. --B (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:Rlevse

Banned means he's not allowed to edit. This is a sock of a banned user. Period. And the ban was partly for socking. Rewarding that behavior is counterproductive. Too much time has been wasted on this user already. Let's not do it again. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:DHeyward

User:NuclearUmpf published my real name, employer and other personal information. He did it both on and off wiki in a malicious manner. Other editors commenting here have continued to make sure that the stalking continues (notably Giovanni33 and Inclusionist). My employer was contacted because of that. I was cyber stalked because of that. It continues on sites such as WR today. He should not be allowed to return and contribute in any way either as sockpuppets or as himself. --DHeyward (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

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

• Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Matthead (talk · contribs)

Statement by Moreschi

As I think WP:AE currently shows nicely, the Eastern Europe flamewars cannot be dealt with by the current provisions of the Digwuren case. At any rate, I cannot cope, and I don't think anyone else can either. Isolating civility in the way the case does has simply encouraged users to bait other users in an effort to get their opponents put on civility supervision and blocked. We need discretionary sanctions WP:ARBMAC style to counter this, though with a good definition of the area of conflict (I would suggest, at the least, that it covers Polish-German disputes, in addition to Polish-Russian and articles relating to the Baltic states and Ukraine). Best, Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Matthead

I had opened at case at WP:AE, after which User:Molobo opened two against me 1st (closed) and 2nd, trying to take advantage that I had been added quickly to the Digwuren list shortly after it was opened, and got immediately blocked, while he and well known other editors have, well, since been overlooked somehow? I perceive the composition of the list as lopsided and doubt that Eastern Europe flamewars are conducted one way. Wikipedia has 5 pillars, of which "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" and "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view" are the first two, and arguably the most important ones, compared to "Wikipedia has a code of conduct" as fourth. Thus, as we try to write an encyclopedia, I think it is necessary that much more attention is given to the content that editors add or remove, rather than to civility or the lack thereof, or the skill with which some editors can provoke uncivil responses while getting judged civil themselves. For example, Molobo repeatedly denied that there was a by-election to the Polish parliament in 1920 [14] [15] [16] [17] with support by another well known user [18] [19], calling it a German hoax also on talk, and stubbornly refused to acknowledge that after the Versailles Treaty made Soldau/Dzialdowo Polish, a by-election was held, which apparently is also stated on pl-wiki (which he repeatedly rejects, eg. with no source in Polish wikipedia and I can just as well edit that article that Martians invaded Działdowo in 1920. They were no elections in 1920 in Poland to Sejm. Case closed.). If I had not fixed it, the misinformation "A German author claims that after the town was ceded to Poland a large part of German inhabitants left the area but the candidate of the German Party, Ernst Barczewski, was elected to the Sejm with 74,6 % of votes in 1920, although no Sejm elections took place at the time" would probably still remain. Also, on Talk:Karkonosze, he repeatedly made false claims, denying that both Encyclopedia Britannica and Opera Corcontica use Giant Mountains rather than Karkonosze. In both cases, he Refused to 'get the point' despite other editors providing evidence that the was wrong, very wrong. Is such behavior acceptable? Molobo almost got permabanned two years ago. He returned after his one year block, and seemingly was allowed to do as he pleases since. -- Matthead  Discuß   02:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Relata refero

There is absolutely no doubt that this is required. My involvement in EE issues is limited to the Worst Article On Wikipedia and on responding to various RfCs and posts on noticeboards - perhaps half a dozen articles altogether. It would be more except for the (a) blatant wikilawyering and misrepresentation of sources that happens as a matter of course and (b) outright baiting and misapplication of civility. I'm not one of those who believes that civility is pointless when dealing with POV-pushers, but what we have in these articles is that any statement of fact - "that source is obviously irrelevant" - is met with head-shaking reminders to be civil in the hope that some form ArbCom-mandated sanction will be required.

As a general rule, any section of the 'pedia permanently plagued with clashing historical narratives requires our most stringent controls. These are more difficult to administer and keep clean, because of the free availability and difficulty in recognising dubious sourcing, than the pseudoscience/scientific consensus articles that people have wailing conniptions about all over the noticeboards. Not to mention there are fewer people able and willing to keep an eye on it, and its much tougher to recognise POV-pushing....

If ArbCom suggests that I present a few diffs of the sort of occasion where (a) civility restrictions have led to baiting and (b) discretionary sanctions would have been helpful - just from my own experience - I am willing to. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Rlevse

I endorses this request. Many of the long-term problematic areas of wiki need strong and flexible remedies. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Biophys

"Blocks of up to one year" on discretion of a single uninvolved administrator... Such drastic measured could only be used for users with long blocking history (say 6+ blocks). Besides, the area of conflict should be clearly defined. I asked previously if any Russia-related subjects belong to Digwuren case, but there was no answer. I trust Moreschi judgement, but we need some safeguards if this is adopted as a general policy.Biophys (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Martintg

There is no justification to extend discretionary sanctions to other topic areas such as the Polish/Russian articles, Ukraine or particularly the Baltic states. An examination of WP:ANI and other boards will reveal that these areas are relatively harmonious, and the existing mechanisms such as 3RR are working well.

A similar motion to impose discretionary sanctions across all of Easter Europe, on the back of a single 3RR violation in that case, was attempted back in February, but was archived due to lack of interest and some important questions of scope remaining unanswered [20]

So what has happened since February? A scan through the WP:AE archives reveals only a small number of cases reported to the AE board have anything actually to do with Eastern Europe. Out of 126 cases since February, only 4 are EE related, particularly Poland, and of those 4, 3 are concerned with Matthead [21],[22],[23]

Looking at the Digwuren enforcement provision indicates no utilisation of that remedy since April, despite Matthead being put on notice in January and blocked and three recent reports to WP:AE have gone unactioned, indicated above.

Both Moreschi and Rlevse have failed to adequately use the current remedies available to them. What is the point of proposing additional discretionary sanctions (with arbitrary blocks of up to one year) across all of EE, if they are unwilling or too timid to use existing remedies and impose a simple 24 hour block against an individual, despite it being brought to WP:AE three times in the last month?

Experience has shown that in the case of EE, disruption is usually caused by one or two individuals, and if they are banned/blocked harmony quickly returns. This is clearly a case concerning the behaviour of an individual and has no relevance to any other topic areas like Ukraine, Poland/Russia or the Baltic States. Massive intervention that risks totally chilling a broad subject area is not required, particularly when precise targeted action is more than sufficient. Martintg (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I have recused myself once and I believe that at least I can say that this area needs more strict measures. I also agree with user:Biophys though the safeguards come usually with the pack. What Moreschi is asking about is the green light from the ArbCom. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• My response here is the same one that I made in regards to the identical request in the Martinphi-ScienceApologist case below: I'll be happy to move for discretionary sanctions here once the Homeopathy case closes and we know which version of the sanctions is preferred. Kirill ^(prof) 00:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Request to amend prior case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist

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

• Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); [24]

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

MartinPhi has begun editing WP:CIVIL in ways that make it more strongly prejudicial to his opponents. He mentions ScienceApologist as one of the users he wants it to come down more strongly on:

“ Yes, he said it very well indeed. And thanks for archiving (: For many months I have watched people poison the atmosphere, and, for example, call certain "groups of people" who just happened to be present, stuff like "moronic" "woo-woos" "crazies" "nutcases" etc. It has NOT been dealt with. In fact in the case on one user it has not been dealt with even after ArbCom sanctions about civility ”

The bolding is Martinphi's, and for anyone with even a passing knowledge of MartinPhi-ScienceApologist, it's obvious who he's referring to in that sentence.

See also [25] (wants certain words to be "actionable" in themselves.) [26] List of his highly-biased examples of presumably actionable words, including, of all things, "POV-pusher"] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ACivility&diff=207794751&oldid=207779327 (Argues against letting other people know editing of the page is ongoing, because people who are against his views might be brought in)

I have spoken to him on his talk page: [27] his response was to ask me:

“ Why didn't you ask ScienceApologist not to edit CIV? ”

ScienceApologist's only edits to WP:CIV were to revert Martinphi's POV pushing on that page, as far as I can tell, and thhe last one was over a week ago. Martinphi is still editing today.

To Martinphi: Your edit by SA is from 17 April, his last one to WP:CIV is 23 April, and the number is fairly small. Only one comment from him is on the current talk page, and it's from 18 April. If you want Science Apologist cautioned, you have to actually tell someone when it happens, not expect them to do it retrospectively two weeks later. You, however, have been much more visibly active on both the policy page and the talk page for several weeks (SA's edit to mainspace seem entirely devoted to reverting additions by you), and mention him as a major reason for your changes on the talk page. The evidence against you is far stronger. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

To Tom Butler: Science Apologist has not come out and said that he is editing the pages to get at Martinphi, but the reverse situation has occured. As for Littleolive oil, I apologise, I did not know how to investigate and get at the truth, so mentioned a preliminary observation that I probably shouldn't have. I have deleted it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Martinphi is still one of the most active people on WP:CIV, so it might be nice to have some statement on whether that's appropriate soon. If it is, fine, but I'd like to hear some statement on that soon. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Rlevse

This editing of WP:CIVIL is being done by three sides, so let's not look at just one. The three sides are: pro-science, pro-pseudoscience, and a few neutrals. Of course, it's merely one facet of the larger debate which currently has at least three separate threads going in various places at arbcom. I say again, serious most stringent remedies need to be put in place on this area quickly. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Martinphi

I have edited CIV, and participated on the talk page, and my experience is in one of the most uncivil parts of Wikipedia- the paranormal. My experience has given me an excellent perspective for editing that page. Where would an editor gain experience needed to edit CIV? At articles where everyone gets along? The paranormal involves many editors who are highly uncivil, for example calling people or groups "deletionists," "believers in scientism" "true believers," "nutcases," or morons." The Arbitrators have already been treated to a large amount of evidence on this. So I'll just say that no, SA is an Archetypal case, but not by far the only one. SA also edited CIV, removing exactly the stuff he often does [28]. Shoemaker didn't warn him, even when I asked why he only warned me, claiming SA isn't editing CIV.[29] I hadn't been editing there recently till he called my attention to it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker says:

"Science Apologist has not come out and said that he is editing the pages to get at Martinphi, but the reverse situation has occured."

Never said that. Mentioned him as an extreme case. This is a serious misrepresentation, AKA false evidence. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Public statement

I am getting EXTREMELY TIRED of people calling me things like "pro pseudoscience" sometimes in a subtle way as I believe Rlevse does above (if I'm wrong, you can stop reading now). If Rlevse can find ONE INSTANCE where I have been pro pseudoscience, I would like to see it. I would immediately take it back. I feel very insulted that someone like Rlevse would say that to me, as I strive to always be on the side of good sourcing and science (see recent history of Reiki). If I'm wrong, and Rlevse feels I'm one of the neutrals, I'd like him to tell me so. Otherwise, I would like him to stop insulting me by characterizing me in front of the ArbCom as pro-pseudoscience.

But I see absolutely no reason why I should put up with insults from an ArbCom clerk on this page. I expect insults from SA and his friends, but I would expect that an ArbCom clerk would be neutral, or at least get his facts straight. Or, if there is a legitimate difference of opinion, that he would be able to provide diffs to support such a characterization. Either he can't, or I really need to rethink my editing on Wikipedia. But at the very least, why has Rlevse drunk the poisoned rhetoric that SA and company spew about my supposed pseudoscientific POV?

Why am I putting this here? Because I want to make a public statement which the ArbCom members themselves might read: stop characterizing me that way, or support it with evidence. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tom Butler

This is a frivolous complaint. Shoemaker's Holiday is the editor who recently used the "Be Bold" excuse to hijack the Civility article with out discussing his massive changes. I can see now that his boldness has turned to advocacy for ScienceApologist's desire to water down civility so that it is acceptable for him to call people a moron[30]. In fact, SA is the one who has had to be reverted because he repeatedly removed "moron" from the article where it was used as an example of incivility [31].

Rlevse is correct in that there are several viewpoint being expressed, and Martinphi's is just one. Martin has also not shown a determination to resist consensus as you have.

Holiday, I would be careful about meatpuppet accusations without bringing evidence. Tom Butler (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Antelan

Given the situation between ScienceApologist and Martinphi, it is tragic, but probably predictable, that the argument has now moved up to the policy level. Regardless of the outcome, I would hope that Martinphi would not change the policy in an attempt to use his changes as a weapon against ScienceApologist, and vice versa. Antelan^talk 17:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Vassyana

It may be appropriate for both editors to be prohibited from making edits to policies and guidelines in any way related to their disputes over the rules, if the arbs believe there is a stong possibility their rules edits may be related to their ongoing disputes. It's OK for people to have disagreements over interpretation of the rules, but it's not at all OK to bring that dispute into live policy. I see no indication that either user should be prohibited from contributing to the talk pages of those policies and guidelines. I don't see any reason to believe that either editor expressing their opinion and receiving feedback on the talk page should be a problem. Just a thought. *hands out salt grains* Vassyana (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would ask the arbitrators to review WP:FRINGE, both the current dispute and the general history of the guideline. It appears to often be a proxy battleground for the opposing sides in this general dispute, with some editors ignoring the requirements of consensus and general open collegial editing. Vassyana (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Dreadstar

Since this subject has been raised, I think it may be helpful if ArbCom could clarify whether or not a number of SA’s comments violate his ArbCom restrictions on Civility and Assuming Good Faith, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist restricted. He is constantly being rude and insulting to editors he disagrees with, this continues despite many WP:AE reports (some of them frivolous, but some are very legitimate examples of SA violating his ArbCom restrictions). In virtually all the blocks, admins who seem to back his editing style push to have him unblocked or unblock him directly, sometimes against the consensus and objections of other Admins and editors, such as this.

Are ScienceApologist's edits uncivil, or are they acceptable behavior? Here are some examples; I know there are a lot, but there's really no single edit that is truly damning, it's the overall pattern, a constant stream of abusive, uncivil comments directed at his opponents: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]. Dreadstar † 03:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

I'm always uncomfortable when editors involved in an interpersonal dispute modify core policy pages in a way which will presumably affect that dispute. When an editor has a history as... colorful... as Martin's, that's doubly true. Edits such as this, in which he adds several terms used by ScienceApologist in the context of creating a definition of "actionable" incivility, suggest a clear connection. I would be happier if Martin would restrict himself to discussion on the policy talk page rather than editing the policy directly. The same would go for ScienceApologist. I don't think that contentious editors pursuing a personal battle make good policy. But that's just me. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Raymond arritt

I broadly agree with the statement by Rlevse above. The best outcome would be if policy pages had wider scrutiny that was representative of the community as a whole. Does it bother anyone else that every policy describes itself as "a widely accepted standard" when in fact they are heavily influenced by battles between a very few editors? Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

<drive by comment> You could say the same about some articles... </drive by comment> Carcharoth (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Woonpton

I couldn't find an empty template, so I just copied the one above, hope that's acceptable.

I've been surprised and dismayed and a little confused, between reading the "Governance Reform" discussion where it seems to be agreed that it's very difficult to change policy even when there is consensus in the entire community, to find how easily a few people can change policy willy nilly as in this case, simply by editing policy pages. But I wouldn't characterize the current dispute as a battle between "pro-science" and "pseudoscience" editors per se; instead I would say what is happening is that a few people are trying to change the policy to broaden the definition of incivility, and a few other people are (rightly, in my opinion) reverting it back to the status quo. I don't see the reverters as "changing policy" to further an agenda, but simply respecting the principle that policy should only be changed with broad community consensus. Woonpton (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I agree that it would be better that policy pages - and, especially, such crucial ones as this - were better monitored and had a wider gamut of participation. However, I don't see that, beyond exhorting greater involvement by the community at large, there is much that the Committee can usefully do. James F. (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Editing core policies should be done only on a full and mature consideration of the full circumstances and never because of a single case, especially not one in which the user making the edit was involved. However, no arbitration committee resolution is needed on this, because contentious edits to core policies are fundamentally disruptive and editors who persistently disrupt can be blocked by any administrator. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Request to amend: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request: The list of users in affected areas is too large to collect, list and notify conveniently. I will place notices of this request, so the community as a whole is aware, on the village pump,[44] administrators' noticeboard,[45] and fringe theory noticeboard.[46] If another editor believes there is a specific user or another on-wiki forum that should receive notice, they should feel free to drop a link to them.

Statement by Vassyana

I would like to request that ArbCom explicitly permit discretionary sanctions on all pseudoscience and alternative science topics, broadly construed, similar to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions. See here, here, here, here, here, here and here. That is only the recent threads, only from the AE noticeboard, only involving a very limited number of users involved in the broader dispute. I believe ArbCom explicitly endorsing discretionary sanctions would empower and embolden sysops and the community to resolve these long-standing issues, once and for all. Vassyana (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply about potential admin abuse

Regarding the concerns about potential admin abuse, I would expect that if ArbCom accepted this request that they would be open to reviewing complaints about related admin abuse. I believe this would increase the oversight and reduce the potential abuse of sysop discretion. Sysops would have to be accoutable for their actions.

I believe relying on more than common sense for the definition of "uninvolved" will only lead to wikilawyering. All of the proposed definitions I've seen essentially leave massive loopholes that anyone looking to game the system or skirt the rules could use. If there is a disagreement about whether an administrator is involved or not, a brief community discussion or appeal to ArbCom should suffice. I simply fail to see the point of creating a limited definition prone to gaming, which would require other admins and the community to employ their natural power of reason regardless. Vassyana (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Neal's oppose, I simply cannot understand that point of view, though I have tried. We permit administrators to impose full site blocks without an expiration date at their discretion. I fail to see how giving administrators lessor options (such as a topic ban instead of a full block) in long-disputed areas with persistant conduct problems would increase abuse potential. I should additionally note that we're discussing long-term problems, involving users who either know better by know or almost assuredly are never going to get it, not newbies who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Vassyana (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may comment directly (if not you can move this to my section). I'm more concerned about abuse-through-misunderstanding rather than abuse-abuse. It's not always clear what's neutral, and the discretionary sanctions designed for Homeopathy and the Palestine-Israeli issue are designed for narrow subjects. A broader subject category, like all pseudoscience/alternative science, becomes muddled with lots of other issues (see my statement). The discretionary sanctions for the narrow topics say any percieved "[failure] to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia", by any admin who feels strongly about it. There's lots of admins who feel strongly about their interpretation of NPOV, whether they're involved or not, and especially if they're involved in the broader discussions though not technically involved in the given page at the given time. The discretionary sanctions don't discriminate between bad editor practices like incivility, edit warring, etc. and good faith content disputes. Good faith content disputes can easily be seen as a "conduct problem", as that happens all the time. Maybe I am making a mountain out of a molehill, but hopefully you can see where the concern comes from. On a side-note, if we already have tools available for getting problem editors off these articles, why aren't they already banned? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply about community discussion

Requesting or advocating that such discretionary empowerment be limited to consensus discussions is essentially the same as opposing this request. The community already has the power to impose bans and other sanctions via community discussion. I tend to think that over time, using such a method will only open up another battleground. Enforcement threads have already become another place to argue for the disputants in heated areas. I shudder to think what kind of response would be received after the first couple of sanction discussions make it "real" to such parties. (For an example, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive409#User:Mccready_-_endless.2C_disruptive.2C_repetitive_edit_warring.)

Regarding the concern about appeals, they should generally be appealable like any other admin action enforcing ArbCom sanctions: 1) Post to AN to ask other admins to review it. 2) Appeal to ArbCom. Excessive, repeated or otherwise disruptive series of appeals are not appeals at all; they are stumping and should be treated by another uninvolved administrator as disruptive. Vassyana (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to concerns about scope

What if the scope were limited to areas and users that have severe long-running and/or perpetually recurring behavioral issues? I believe that would keep the scope from being too broad or limited. Vassyana (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Rlevse

I heartily endorse this request for stronger measures re editors on both sides of this issue. More details to follow. I'll be on wiki break much of this weekend. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Both sides throw reports at WP:AE, trying to see what will stick. Many admins are wary to block because of fears another admin that is sympathetic to the blockee will unblock. The remedies in place are not working and something has to be done about it. There are also significant agreements among admins about what constitutes civility. This leads to users who have mastered the art of being borderline incivil and getting away with it for years. A firm policy about this sort of incivility being blockable, long term if necessary, need to be put in place. Copied from my comment at WP:AE archive 20..."Closing comment...enough already. This has descended into a finger-pointing complaint session by both sides. Before writing anything about someone else, ask "Would I want to be called that?". If not, don't write it. If it's borderline don't write it-this would stop all the attempts here where users throw up a report just to see what sticks; only truly legit reports would get filed if this were to occur. For example, maybe you wouldn't mind being called "braindead", but it would offend a lot of people. Also, you (you as in everyone, both sides) may consider your efforts on wiki non-POV, but others may not. If everyone involved here would take a step back, take a deep breath, and admit that the world of wiki is plenty big for everyone, things would be a lot calmer. These types of disputes start and go on and on when no one allows room for the other side. I see this not only in the pseudoscience area, but Mid-East, East Europe, Sri Lanka, etc disputes. On top of all this, there's about disagreement about the civility here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)"...Something has to be done here, this long term situation is highly divisive to the encyclopedic and takes way too admin effort to keep it within harmonic editing boundaries. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Nealparr

Sure, if by "uninvolved administrator" you mean administrators not involved in "pseudoscience and alternative science topics, broadly construed" as a whole, or regularly, rather than a given page at a given time. After years of this madness, Wikipedia has collected some ban-happy admins with grudges and axes to grind. I'm sure many of them would love to ban their opponents on content disputes for up to a year. What sort of assurances can one like myself who edits paranormal-related articles as a hobby, not advocacy, be given that the new powers won't be abused? I don't edit war, am civil, but I've irritated admins in the past simply by disagreeing with them in content disputes, particularly that Wikipedia can also cover folklore neutrally without having a solely science point-of-view. Some admins adamantly reject that eventhough most agree that such a prospect is entirely neutral. AGF went out the window about two years ago on these topics, so frankly I'm a little concerned.

Paranormal topics aren't just pseudoscience (though they are, in part, that). There's also a historical perspective (eg. Remote viewing was studied by the CIA, UFOs were studied by the Air Force, Parapsychology was once accepted by the elite in society like William James, etc.). Presenting that historical information is sometimes called POV pushing by admins. There's also the sociological perspective (eg. 73 percent of the general US population holds some sort of paranormal belief [47]). Presenting information regarding just the "beliefs" is sometimes called POV pushing by admins. There's also the cultural, folklore perspective (eg. Spooklights are common in Southern US folklore). Talking about the folklore on those articles is sometimes called POV pushing by admins who say that the article should predominantly be about methane gases, etc. So, yes, there is a potential for abuse based solely on ideologies and old grudges. If the goal is to just to refresh the editor pool on these topics regardless of whether they're productive Wikipedians, that's fine, that goal will be served if no oversight is in place. But if the goal is to only target disruptive editors, there will need to be some sort of oversight.

I'd like to see what DGG mentioned below, a Topic Ban Noticeboard and some degree of practical consensus to prevent a single editor/admin, or ideological group of editors/admins, from going ban-happy. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 13:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

per Vassyana's replies on it's intended use. It seems fundamentally wrong that blocking or banning a user, a person, would have less outside discussion than what it takes to delete an article. This is essentially a "speedy delete" applied to a user, in spirit. It's always harder to correct a mistake than it is to prevent a mistake. Community discussion is essential when dealing with users who may not be aware that what they are doing is wrong, and determining what actually is wrong to begin with. That's what RfCs are all about. If the goal is to relieve the burden on the ArbCom, that can be done without dropping the discussions altogether. A very simple way to do that is to say "If after a RfC about applying sanctions on the user, allowing for community input and consensus-building, an uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict." Anything less is setting the bar for deleting a user from a topic lower than deleting a topic itself. The RfC also has the benefit of providing the banning/blocking admin with a summary of the issues surrounding the user so they could make an informed decision. The admin could, of course, in their discretion, interpret the RfC anyway they wish and impose their discretionary sanctions, but at least there'd be a discussion on the matter. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry

Concur that this is a good idea, as an admin who is a regular at WP:AE. Editors active in this area should write their comments assuming that their own actions, and those of whom they agree with on content, will be reviewed and possibly sanctioned. I know of multiple editors in each faction who have effectively developed enemy lists of other editors they want banned, which is a bad sign for the ability of the editors in these areas to work together. We need to clear out those who can't or won't work with those who disagree with them so that a reasonable communal editing environment exists for current and future editors. GRBerry 15:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a strong definition of uninvolved/neutral is needed here. I commend the WP:ARBPIA model - has never been involved in a content dispute on any article in the pseudoscience/paranormal topic area with that topic area broadly construed. GRBerry 17:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We need more than that. We need a statement of neutrality toward the subjects themselves. I've seen mediators come in and say essentially "Well it's bunk so..." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Martinphi

Endorse per everything Nealparr said. I have very little confidence in the ability of admins 1) to be neutral if they are involved and 2) to get it if they are not. Indeed, I have seen editors like Zvika who did my interview struggle with the issues in these cases, and find it nearly impossible (many many hours of work to get up to date). I have seen obviously biased admins who are supposedly "outside" the debates come in and give sanctions. For example, some of those banning people relative to the 9/11 or Homeopathy issues. In other words, I have no fear of neutrality, but I have fear of hidden bias. If even Nealparr is scared, I certainly am, because I've been deionized all over the place irrespective of my actual edits, beliefs, ideas or intent.

I would like an advocate that I can agree is neutral, such as LaraLove or DGG or maybe Vassyana to review things before any action is take against me. Same for others.

I suggest that a committee of truly neutral subject matter experts, or simply editors truly neutral to the subjects be set up to deal with sourcing in paranormal areas. "Do you feel neutral toward issues of the paranormal?" Should be the question. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by DGG

I think the "endorsements" above show why it might not actually work--the disagreement between different arbitrators over the standards for these articles is fairly complete. Everyone things that they are neutral. I can predict what will happen, which is continual appeals from it, carried on in every forum possible, just as present. And i do not think the problem is that hopeless either, because I think the community is evolving standards. The problem is not individual topics--the problem is what degree of tolerance we should have for disruptive actions by good editors. Personally, I don't think they should get the essentially free ride they have at present.

If we do something of this sort, I would not leave it to individual admins. or editors. What I think we'd need is the equivalent of a topic ban noticeboard, and some degree of practical consensus would be required. I remember the fate of the community ban noticeboard and I'm a little skeptical. DGG (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Seicer

I believe that, if implemented properly, could be an effective tool in finally ending the heated disagreements between the "anti-science" and "pro-science" camps. I do not believe it will lead to an end of hidden bias or blatant bias -- nor should it -- but that the implementation of a topic ban could finally kill the endless attacks against other editors and administrators, and could finally open the door for new editors, with fresh viewpoints and dialogues, to come in and edit.

I'd also like to echo GRBerry's comments above. There are multiple editors who have developed "watch lists" of other editors and administrators that they either want banned, or removed from various positions at Wikipedia. I will not go into specifics here regarding that, but it's a statement that's been made numerous times previously, here and elsewhere, and that it is leading to a serious divide in how, as editors and administrators, can resolve this long-standing conflict. I'd like to see a "topic ban noticeboard," but I am afraid that it would fall to either inactivity or hidden bias. seicer | talk | contribs 19:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kww

I understand the intention, and fear the result. I think that in order to maintain standing as an encyclopedia, we need be more specific, and actually take a side in favor of facts. Discretionary sanctions should be made available, targeted towards editors that make edits stating or implying a factual basis for pseudoscientific or paranormal topics. If we did that for a while, the heat and rancor would die down, because people attempting to corrupt the encyclopedia would eventually be eliminated.Kww (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tom Butler

Any effort that would make it possible for administrators to more effectively arbitrate content disputes would help. I have been treated as poorly by some admins as I have by some rank and file editors, so I am not in favor of giving any individual admin more authority. Perhaps a cadre of three or five editors would provide protection to both sides.

Lets face it, an arbitration takes way too long, and as I can see, they have hardly any effect except to more clearly define the sides. If an admin blocks an appeal to authority, then the person making the appeal is discredited and the abusive editor becomes more bullet proof. In fact, Wikipedia is not able to manage editors who are willing to game the system.

I have only edited on a few paranormal articles so I may be unaware of some of the grievances. Nevertheless, from my viewpoint, it is unrealistic to imagine that it is possible to arbitrate content disputes without deciding on content--not taking sides, but saying what the article will include. I would be comfortable with a venue in which I could present my viewpoint to a panel, editors with a contrary viewpoint could do the same and the panel would decide the article based on their "fair and informed" decision of what was presented. Give each presenter 500 words and ten diffs. I think I could find a way to live with that and I am certainly willing to try. Tom Butler (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Guy, most of us "believers" just want to have the articles you are complaining about explain what the subject is said to be or thought to be without trying to say what you think it is or what you want the public to believe. I would be interested in how you would apply the treatment used for articles on religious beliefs to paranormal articles. For instance, I suspect that not even members of the WikiProject Rational Skepticism would attempt to make Wikipedia say that the Catholic Church is not real. Can you apply a similar standard to the EVP article without characterizing as real or not real? Can you just say what it is reported to be? Doing so would certainly stop a lot of the content disputes. Tom Butler (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jossi

Agree in principle with Vassyana's proposal, with the caveats presented by DGG, that is to have a place in which we can assess some measure of administrators' consensus when applying broad restrictions such as topic bans or blocks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:B

This has too much potential for abuse the way it is worded. Some people consider anything they disagree with to be pseudoscience and would attempt to apply this far beyond its scope. (For example, most evangelical Christians believe in something other than atheistic evolution, therefore someone who edits Bobby Bowden is editing an article on pseudoscience, right?) It needs to be spelled out what this applies to - theories of origin, alternative medicine, paranormal, etc. --B (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Baegis

I'm going to have to agree with B on this one. There are some areas which qualify as pseudoscience but which do not need this sort of protection. The ID related articles are stable for the most part, because there are a great number of fine editors who are very active on those pages. They are occasionally disrupted, but not nearly enough for the scope of this proposal to be anything more than a hindrance. The areas that this will apply to need to be better spelled out. There are probably thousands of articles that fall within the pseudoscience area, especially if broadly defined. And if BLP's are included in that, ie the ones of proponents of pseudoscience, there are an even greater number of articles. I would wager that it is pretty clear the the biggest problems lie in the CAM area and the paranormal areas. Focusing on the most problematic areas is a better idea than a big sweeping probation. Baegis (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

There is a long-standing issue with pseudoscience, fringe and paranormal articles. The sources which discuss these subjects are typically either wholly uncritical, or dedicated sceptics. The fact that the mainstream science community does not accept paranormal claims is hard to source, because scientists do not publish papers saying that hokum is hokum. The result is a series of in-universe articles on fictional topics. Added to that, we have believers in these paranormal ideas whose primary function on Wikipedia is to attempt to have them documented as reality, not a fringe belief system.

I do believe we can make this work by applying the same methods as are applied in articles on religious belief systems. The article on Saint Alban documents the verifiable facts which are undisputed, being the identity and martyrdom, documented in local Roman records; discusses the mythology of the Holy Well; and discusses the cult of Alban. I think we can document the paranormal belief system in the same way, but we have too many people asserting that it is real. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Antelan

My own personal sentiment is that the current options for enforcement have not yet been applied in a stringent way, and should not be broadened until they have been fully tested. That said, I share Vassayana's frustration, and would hope that this will serve to push administrators to use the tools that they have been given. Antelan^talk 17:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

Given the occasionally contentious nature of the discussions regarding this subject, perhaps it might be possible for the ArbCom to help in the selection of a group of editors who would be able to function in much the same way as the recently created cultural disputes group is supposed to. It might also be useful for some of the religion and pseudoscience content as well, given the often disparate opinions there. Might it be possible to expand the remit of the existing cultural disputes group, and possibly its membership, to include these other matters as well, or alterntely create similar groups for these matters? John Carter (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Filll

Although I understand the desire to come up with a quick fix or a magic bullet here, I do not think that more enforcement is the answer. I have observed how well more enforcement and greater empowerment of admins worked at homeopathy and related articles, and I have to admit I was somewhat underwhelmed. I have also encountered a fair number of administrators who are FRINGE proponents or antiscience themselves, so just giving all administrators more power is not a very well-reasoned response. I would like to see a more measured and careful approach for dealing with this kind of problem, such as those potential options being considered at the discussion lead by User:Raul654 at [48].--Filll (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• We are currently looking into some modifications to the discretionary sanction ruling as part of the Homeopathy case; while I'm open to imposing them here, I'd prefer to avoid doing so until we decide on the better wording there. Kirill ^(prof) 01:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Per Kirill. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Request for clarification–Episodes and characters 2

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

• Kww (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked for a week on April 27)
• Rlevse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocking admin)

Statement by User:Kww

The decision text is : TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate.

TTN was blocked for one week today, for edits that did not violate a single term of the restrictions from his arbcom enforcement. "Broadly interpreting" [49] and [50] as substantially amounting to a merge or deletion is a broad interpretation beyond all reason.

Can TTN still edit character articles to bring them in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Or is any edit that removes material from a character article capable of being broadly interpreted as a deletion?Kww (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure I'm understood ... I'm not concerned about applying the decision to video-game characters. I'm objecting to the idea that taking an article that was in truly miserable shape and fixing it substantially amounts to a merge or deletion.Kww (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to expand a bit here, and register my objection to the term of his latest block as well. Recapping his first block: I agree that the tantrum that starts every time TTN edits an article is disruptive, but he is not the source of the disruption, his opponents are. He was blocked for editing Final Fight:Streetwise. He was criticised for removing about 80% of one of the cruftiest articles around, and turning it into a reasonable video game article. He made three different passes at it, and was reverted by Zero Giga and an anonymous IP. Each pass made an effort to address the previous concerns. This editing was broadly construed as requesting a deletion, so he got blocked for a week. Black Kite shows up a few days later, and, instead of removing 80% of the article, only removes 65% of the article. Not a peep. None of the editors that so cheerfully reverted TTN's edits wholesale found a single line of Black Kite's edits to object to. The only conclusion I can reach is that the editors that were reverting him were not motivated by the material: they were motivated by the fact that it was TTN that had made the removals. Now, in such a situation, what is the appropriate action for an admin to take? It's to go have a chat with the editors that reverted the change, and make sure that they are undoing the change as opposed to undoing the editor. Instead, admins looked at the arbcom decision, and stretched the interpretation of "deletion" well past its breaking point, and blocked TTN for a week. Notice that the Arbcom sanctions called for blockages increasing to a week in the event of repeated violations. Even if this edit had motivated a block, a week is complete overkill ... they reached for the biggest hammer in their toolkit as the first step.

Now, TTN has been blocked for two weeks, based on the perception that he is repeatedly violating his sanctions. His offending edit was to the Fiction Noticeboard. The community is reasonably split as to whether this falls under the restriction of "project pages" or under the freedom of "free to contribute on talk pages". I can see both sides, and think clarification is warranted. Still, worst case is that it is his first offense, and an offense that reasonable people can see as not an offense at all. For this, he was blocked for two weeks, despite the fact that the maximum sanction in the Arbcom decision is one week.

I think that not only is clarification needed, but a strong statement is needed that the phrase "broadly interpreted" does not mean "block TTN at the drop of a hat". I sense that there is a group of admins that have decided that the easiest way to end the controversy is to simply block TTN at the time that any dispute involving him occurs. Sanctions against an editor are a serious thing, and, in order to be meaningful, but be subject to reasonable interpretation. Editing articles cannot be interpreted as "requesting deletion", and "up to one week for repeated offenses" cannot be reasonably interpreted as "two weeks". Kww (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it be too much to ask for an arbitrator to take the time to read my complaint and respond before banning me? Kww (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So nice to be appreciated. How many arbitrators have to vote for the topic ban in order for it to become binding?Kww (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we have some clarifications, please?

This section is intended to be a place where previous decisions are clarified, not extended. You wrote piles of different variations of different sentences. Thought them over. Voted on different versions. Subtleties of different text were weighed, evaluated, and then chosen, based on their merits. Not a one of you really thought that when you selected TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. from all of the other choices that that text meant TTN and Kww should be topic banned. In good faith, none of you can claim that it meant TTN should be blamed for all conflicts that arise, and blocked at a rate greatly exceeding the specified enforcement. Even if those things are what you wanted to say, they are not what you said. If the community was requesting you to amend your previous cases, we would have made statements under Request to amend. No one has done so.

So, time for clarifications:

• At the time that you wrote TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly, did you intend for the noticeboards to be included as a project page?

• At the time that you wrote TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly, did you intend for TTN to be banned from trimming articles?

• At the time that you wrote He is free to contribute on the talk pages, how did you intend for that to interact with request for any of the preceding in the previous statement? Does his freedom include requests for deletion? Or not?

Please answer those questions. That's all this section is for. What you think of the situation now is interesting, but for another place. What you wish you had thought of is interesting, but again, for another place. What you think of my attitude is interesting, but, again, for another place. This is a place solely for clarifications, so, please, please, please, give us clarification.Kww (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Rlevse

Over the last week TTN has removed over 80% of the "Final Fight: Streetwise" article 3 times, which TTN claims are trimming and cleaning up, yet in fact whole paragraphs were removed, such as here. In the Mario characters, which have also been on TV as best I recall, he removed entire paragraphs, as here. Similar issues were brought here at AN. As video games are very similar to TV, they often appear on TV in some form, and the fact that this problem was evident during the arbitration hearings, and the ruling says "broadly interpreted", and TTN seems to be pushing the envelope, the need for a block was apparent to me.

An unblock was declined and supported by others.

Response to Kww's clarification...I'd have to say that removing whole sections, paragraphs, and 80% of an article amounts to deletion. This is not "trimming and cleaning up". Further consider that the remedy also said "The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question." This seems to have been clearly violated by TTN too. There has been no chat at Talk:Final Fight: Streetwise for a year. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry

I will be pleasantly surprised if the editors in this area manage to avoid another full ArbComm in the near future. The issues are not specific to TTN; one example is shown by this archived WP:AE report. In my view, problems exist in the behavior of both factions. It seems ridiculous to consider discretionary sanctions for this topic area; these editors should be able to work together to find consensus if they choose to. But if they don't choose to, we may have to end up with discretionary sanctions. GRBerry 13:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by TTN

Can I please get some sort of clarification on what exactly I can do and cannot do? Can I cleanup articles by removing information? That's that's what I was initially blocked for. Can I revert at all? Edit warring is bad, but to have a block sustained because of two reverts (where one revert is a anon with a non-static IP) seems a little steep without some sort of restriction on that in the first place. Can I suggest that things be merged on talk pages of users, projects, and other articles? I assumed that the restriction was towards templates, but I was scrutinized for doing so. Can I point out bad articles? I guess I wouldn't ask one user single again, but can I just post a list of "problem articles" on a project talk page or the Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard, and let them take care of it? If this could be responded to quickly, that would be appreciated. TTN (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Sjakkalle

I am not exactly sure where to put this statement, since there are already two requests for clarification here, but I want to register my concerns here.

I have a deep concern that the ArbCom's admonition The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. is not being followed at all. Let's see.

First, "Cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question." (The redirection and unredirection of episodes and characters with little or no discussion is still taking place.)

Second, "...attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute.". Since the E&C2 case closed, I have seen at least two instances of parties from that case use the term vandalism. (And I have not been actively searching for these, there are probably more, from both sides of the dispute)

• Kww at 14:00, 1 April 2008 Regarding authors of fiction/fancruft articles: "I would happily treat people creating such articles as vandals, as opposed to editors". (After looking at E&C2, I see that Kww is not listed as a party, but since he initiated this clarification, and supportive of TTN, I think he is de facto party to it.)
• Eusebeus at 03:06, 6 May 2008 restores a redirect, calling the undoing of the redirect "vandalism". (And there are two more, here and here.)

I cannot imagine anything more inflammatory than calling the "other side" of the dispute "vandals".

This has got to stop.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment regarding Kww

When I listed Kww in my statement, it was not an attempt to single him out in particular. The reason I added it was that the statement struck me when I saw it as something highly inappropriate, and an indication of how low the "discussion" had sunk by this time.

However, I want to say that Kww is not by any means the worst offender in the FICT debate, his work in removing or consolidating fictional topics has to my knowledge not included edit-warring or massive swathes of deletion nominations or redirects. Indeed, I have no problem believing MartinPhi when he says that Kww has been able to work and contribute constructively on certain fiction articles.

I have no problem with Kirill's dismay at seeing the comparison between vandals and fiction editors, I continue to think that this particular diff was very inappropriate, and it was one which hit me quite close to home. There is a discussion between Kww and myself on my talkpage, and if I understood Kww correctly, his remark was directed against editors who add fiction with no sources, and edit war to keep it in. Calling this "vandalism" remains inappropriate, but I don't think he directed the accusation at all fiction writers in general. I don't know whether this diff is representative of Kww's attitude either, he assured me in the discussion on the talkpage that he was careful not to call any editor a vandal directly, and he also took time out to caution another editor that restoring redirects with an accusation of "vandalism" in the summary would only lead to trouble [51].

I am not going to tell ArbCom how to handle their cases, but when evidence presented by myself is used as basis for a sanction, I will state my opinion that I think issuing a topic ban for what amounts to one diff over six weeks ago is an overreaction. If this were an example of behavior from a person otherwise engaged in edit-warring in this conflict, I would probably be in support of something like this. I can understand an impatience that continued incivility and edit warring after two ArbCom cases is wearing the tolerance very thin here. If the ArbCom can find a way to send a very clear and unequivocal message that calling anybody in this dispute a "vandal" must cease, without perma-banning Kww from fiction topics, that will be much more preferable. Yes, I know there were two admonitions from two previous ArbCom cases, but I don't think Kww's single inappropriate comment has rendered useless all further input from him in this conflict. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment regarding TTN

My sympathy with TTN is at zero now. A look at List of Mario series characters shows a number of edits where TTN removes a little bit of content from the article, calling it "trim", most recently here, with no explanation given for this "trim". And this is not only unquestionable trivia he is removing, he has been removing content about which games the characters have appeared (isn't that relevant to the character?) like "Princess Rosalina also appeared as a hidden character in Mario Kart Wii". This seems to be an effort to slowly tap the list of content in a way which does not attract attention. Also on List of Sonic X episodes, this edit, which the edit summary claims to be "Set up basic table", is far more drastic that setting up a table, TTN actually removes all the description of the episode, and again this is without any discussion on the talkpage. Another "trim" on List of Kirby characters here didn't just trim the section on the characters Mr. Shine & Mr. Bright, it removed them.

I feel this is at the very least a skirting of the edges of the ArbCom restrictions. If the right to merge, redirect, or nominate for deletion is taken away, just move on to aggressive "trimming" instead. The proposed sanction from ArbCom on TTN, as opposed to the sanction on Kww, which I have opposed in the above section, is in my opinion, completely in order. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Lawrence

Can we place get AC action on this? It's starting all over again: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_review_of_2_week_block_of_User:TTN. I know you guys are busy, but this appears to be now a critical case and clarification action is needed. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 05:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

Whilst using the term "vandals" to describe editors who repeatedly create multiple policy-failing articles on the back of the previous ArbCom decision is probably excessive, I'd certainly go as far as to use "disruptive". Topic-banning editors who attempt to balance policy against those creating reams of unencyclopedic articles (and then descending en masse onto any AfD which occurs with masses of WP:ITSNOTABLE non-!votes) is certainly a good way of reducing the quality of this alleged encyclopedia, which becomes less and less of one every day that such articles continue to multiply. It is time for ArbCom to realise that there are two sides to this dispute, and stop listening - as has happened so far - only to those that shout the loudest. If ArbCom actually wants to improve the quality of our articles, they either need to throw this proposed sanction in the bin, or add about another half-dozen users to it. Where are the sanctions for those that edit-war on policy pages, flood AfD with wikilawyering or revert TTN and other editors even when they are editing in line with policy?. Nowhere, it appears. I am astonished that at least two arbs (so far) appear to have looked at a few incidents yet not at the bigger picture. This is a ridiculous proposed sanction, especially on User:Kww who appears to be targeted for a single frustrated edit. Black Kite 22:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Kirill's quote here User_talk:Ned_Scott#TTN of "his (TTN's) reputation is such that anything he does will likely be reverted regardless of its merits—so all he's doing is needlessly antagonizing the editors supporting this material" - makes it clear that he is supporting topic-banning an editor because those with opposing views continually revert him especially as those editors reverting TTN are usually reverting against policy. I had to read this a number of times before I was sure he was serious. Black Kite 10:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ned Scott

TTN got recently blocked because he honestly did not think his restrictions meant that he wasn't able to start a thread on a project notice board, myself and several other Wikipedians in good standing were under the same assumption. That's not gaming the system or pushing the limit, that's nothing more than miscommunication. TTN even pleaded with you guys to get some guidance, and arbcom ignored the request for clarification for weeks. Now Kirill comes out of no where with a complete and total ban proposal? That's a horrible idea. TTN has been behaving very well, and hasn't been doing anything wrong. The flames seen are nothing more than the left over feelings from the past, not because of things that are happening now.

And Kirill comes completely out of left field with a proposal to ban Kww, who hasn't even had any kind of RfC or mediation, or focus of any kind in the last two cases. It's like swinging around blindly, smashing furniture and breaking walls, just to put out a candle. Take off the blindfold and put down the bat. I personally would do anything (within my human abilities as a Wikipedian) to get arbcom to reconsider this, and to actually look at the situation instead of the white noise. The fact that these proposals are even being considered is a very scary thing, and shakes my faith that arbcom can be fair and reasonable. -- Ned Scott 02:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And no one even notes stuff like this. Please, I beg all of the arbs to not make assumptions here. -- Ned Scott 02:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like some more eyes on this: User talk:Ned Scott#TTN. Kirill's logic is that even if TTN isn't doing anything wrong, because of his reputation people will revert and argue with him, so Kirill wants to remove TTN by force. That seems very inappropriate to me. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Casliber

TTN (and others) have had a year or more of multiple reports at AN/I and arbcom etc. to stop behaving like single-purpose content removal accounts, sending all and sundry scurrying about to ref or remove material, plainly not in the spirit of collaborative editing of a volunteer project. Some have shown valued roles and abilities in other areas, some haven't. I can't comment on KWW as I have not examined his edit details but am happy that he can think independently on some issues (we swapped sides on Jack Merridew's ban after all), which is a good sign. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

By Martinphi

Could you make an exception for What the Bleep do We Know?. Kww was one of those who was able to work toward NPOV on that article. He wasn't perfect, but he did manage it, and he was also a moderating influence on other editors of his own general opinion. Might need him there again. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie

So ArbCom is going to compound their mistakes by dropping further "clarifications" on an issue that has already seen the other side turn ArbCom's words into pretzels in an attempt to run "the other side" off the encyclopedia? I can't say as I agree with the suggested outcome. SirFozzie (talk) 07:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Vassyana

I recently blocked TTN for what I felt was an outright violation of his restrictions, compounded by what I perceived as pushing the boundaries (or moving against the spirit) of the sanction. I unblocked him when he agreed to refrain from initiating any merge/redirect/etc discussion and avoid asking others to act on his behalf, until such a time as ArbCom responded to these clarification requests.[52][53] There was some discussion of the block on my talk page, as well as TTN's.[54][55][56] My block was raised for review on AN, where the actions of Pixelface and a potential topic ban for TTN were also raised.[57] If the arbitrators feel my actions were inappropriate, I would welcome the criticism and appreciate any advice. Vassyana (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by sgeureka

I am quite concerned about the current motions to topic-ban anyone who dares try to improve the encyclopedia per policies and guidelines, or who sympathizes with editors legitimately trying to improve the encyclopedia. Before someone else does it, I'll do it myself.

• Sgeureka 16:12, May 17, 2008 restores a redirect, calling the undoing of the redirect "vandalism". (By the way, the redirect needed to be semi-protected for two weeks before, and the undoer has been blocked twice now, the last one for "persistent vandalism", but I realize some people would continue to call my action vandalism.)

I agree with Sjakkalle that this has to stop, but there are two sides of the coin here. Someone described the current actions against TTN (and by extension any fiction mergist/deletionist, including Kww) as "lynchmob". I think no other word better captures my impression of the situation. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jakew

I became aware of this quite recently, when I noticed repeated and insistent demands (bordering on disruption) at WT:NOT to remove WP:PLOT from policy. This kind of thing is somewhat familiar, and although exceptions exist, when we trace the history we usually find repeated attempts (and often edit warring) to insert some material, which is removed per policy (often WP:NPOV or WP:NOR, though not in this case) and the user in question then decides that the issue is so important that policy must be changed to accomodate it. Such attempts rarely succeed, because consensus is that the user has fundamentally failed to grasp what WP is (and is not). That may be the case here.

I would suggest that the very fact that one side of this dispute has identified a need to change policy indicates that they may have previously been editing against policy. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are "wrong", per se, but it is hard to understand why other editors should be sanctioned for "enforc[ing] most policies and guidelines by editing pages, and discussing matters with each other". If there are behavioural problems (I understand from FoF #3 that there have been), then these need to be addressed, but please make remedies proportionate and understandable in a wider context.

Statement by Masem

• I have to agree with Ned, Sgeureka, and Jakew in that what is being proposed here seems very one-sided to the overall picture that was developed from the E&C 2. TTN, to me, seems to be trying to meet the spirit of the motion, but unfortunately due to his past actions, he's got a set of editors that watch most of his edits, and like to wikilawyer the specific wording. (Case in point, TTN posted a suggestion on the Fiction-related noticeboard, and some took this as violating where TTN is allowed to edit as, strictly speaking, that noticeboard is not a talk page. The "to be interpreted broadly" language in the motion is causing a lot of this trouble, which is why I think those looking to penalize TTN need to consider what the intent of the motion was, and not the specific wording - we want TTN to work collaborative with others to determine how best to improve articles on fiction on WP. There are some actions that TTN has done since the motion that are within the motion's restrictions and thus blocks are appropriate, but the thing is, he is talking and discussing proposed changes. That's mostly what people wanted out of the E&C 2 case, right?
• Unfortunately, this is really not true. The heart of the E&C 2, based on its discussions and the resulting actions since, has seemed to be to validate the fact that Wikipedia's coverage of fiction should not conform to WP:NOT and WP:NOTE, and that coverage of fiction can be broad and expansion based only on primary sources. Now, first, taking this position towards coverage of fiction works itself is not in any way wrong; if that's what the editors believe, I can't say its incorrect. But, in taking that belief, against what is probably an equivalent push to remove much of the coverage of fiction from WP specifically due to WP:NOT and WP:NOTE, there feels to be a strong effort to get rid of editors that do not share the same inclusionists beliefs towards fiction such as TTN and Kww, and to staunchly argue that policy must be changed to support the inclusionist view. The result of the E&C 2 case, based on the above scrutiny of TTN's actions since, seems to be validation that their approach is correct, but again, we have this second motion from this case that involved editors are supposed to help shape how such articles should be handled, not that one side is necessarily right. I have been working the past year to try to get WP:FICT to a point of balance between these extremes which has been long and mentally exhausting, much which rests on WP:NOT#PLOT, but as recent discussions at WT:NOT can show, there are some that simply want that policy gone and do not seem to be making concessions or collaborative efforts to try to figure out the balance, despite the fact that myself and others have offered wording changes and other suggested policy and guidelines to remove some of the concerns they have. That second motion from this case really needs to be considered a lot more in order to balance this out and make sure that the case was not validation for the inclusionists' point of view - unfortunately, the way its written, there's no teeth behind it as much as the TTN restrictions on editing, and it's impossible to show the lack of collaboration, only state that how one's actions in a debate may not feel collaborative. Thus, I feel that the first motion should be read in conjunction with the second, and specifically look at the intent of TTN's actions in regards to both motions regardless of the source of the complaint: is TTN working in a collaborative effort to improve the encyclopedia, instead of his previous hard-nosed and overburdening efforts? --MASEM 14:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kung Fu Man

I'm a bit late to this, but only recently caught wind regardless. I've dealt with both TTN and Kww in a few formats though, and I'm not going to sit here and speak about TTN: my stance towards him is neutral, he has his heart in the right place, but is overly forceful with his vision. I will speak in defense of Kww however. Kww has shown willingness to discuss proposals on subjects like merges and his edits have not had a negative impact on the related subjects. So despite where the ideals may lie, Kww is far from warranting a topic ban in this case.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by DGG

There's a difference between TTN and Kww--TTN is determined to disrupt the formation of consensus on each individual article in any way he can devise, and Kww is trying to get consensus for his general view--a view in complete opposition to mine, to be sure, but I do not see how is is doing it disruptively. I think a permanent topic ban for him is over-reaction. He did not address the word vandal to any editor, he used it I hope a little hyperbolically in a discussion on a policy page to support an extreme view about what ought to be the policy. I don't think it helpful to ban him from these discussions at this point. DGG (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by AuburnPilot

Also a bit late to this discussion, but having just discovered this case, I must strongly disagree with any ban placed on Kww. I've worked extensively with Kww on topics unrelated to this one, and have never found him to be anything but willing to help and discuss points of disagreement. I agree with DGG's statement above, in that a ban on Kww is an overreaction. - auburnpilot talk 20:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Woonpton

I have no experience with the fiction articles in question, but I've worked with kww on What the Bleep Do We Know, a very contentious article where he took the lead and worked with all constituencies to craft a compromise lead we could all live with and had it inserted by an admin into the protected article. This is the kind of editor I would think Wikipedia would want to protect and nurture, rather than punish and alienate. I've never seen him use the derogatory expressions used by some other editors to characterize those of a different viewpoint, and if he did so on a fiction article, then I would have to wonder if, unlikely as it seems, he might have had even more provocation there than on What the Bleep Do We Know, where his demeanor was always professional and respectful to all, during the time I observed him there. Also, though this is less germane to the issues at hand, kww is one of the very few Wikipedians who made me feel welcome and respected as a new editor. It seemed only right to speak on his behalf, though no one asked me to and though I have no information to offer touching on the present issues. Woonpton (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by The Rogue Penguin

Mostly reiterating the last few postings, the topic ban on Kww seems unnecessary. From what I've seen, I would make this analogy: TTN is skating on thin ice, and rather than get off, he starts jumping up and down. Murky areas or not, a little common sense would dictate that you don't push the envelope on such an open-ended restriction. Kww's got no such problem, and aside from some uncivil comments, certainly hasn't enough to warrant a topic ban. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Second Statement by User:Ned Scott

Full topical ban or not, arbcom still hasn't clarified this request. The only thing TTN did "bad" this time was to start a discussion on a notice board that was in the project namespace. Given that two arbs were able to support a ban for Kww then change their minds makes me wonder how much attention is being paid to this situation.

The two proposed bans are both atrocious, but only is the one on Kww easily identifiable (but still missed by two arbs, so far). It really seems like the only reason the topical ban for TTN is getting support is based on assumptions only, and has nothing to do with TTN's actions. Kirill himself has blatantly admitted this [58].

On May 4th, TTN practically begged arbcom to comment on this at #Statement by TTN. It's right there, on this same page, but I'll repeat it again since no one seemed to notice it:

Can I please get some sort of clarification on what exactly I can do and cannot do? Can I cleanup articles by removing information? That's that's what I was initially blocked for. Can I revert at all? Edit warring is bad, but to have a block sustained because of two reverts (where one revert is a anon with a non-static IP) seems a little steep without some sort of restriction on that in the first place. Can I suggest that things be merged on talk pages of users, projects, and other articles? I assumed that the restriction was towards templates, but I was scrutinized for doing so. Can I point out bad articles? I guess I wouldn't ask one user single again, but can I just post a list of "problem articles" on a project talk page or the Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard, and let them take care of it? If this could be responded to quickly, that would be appreciated. TTN (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not some guy trying to skate around a restriction. He's honestly trying to understand his restrictions and abide by them.

I beg of the arbs, if you can find reason to question Kww's restrictions, then take some time to question TTN's. If TTN's topical ban does pass, is it for the duration of the original 6 month ban? And please, actually answer our request, which is all we wanted from you. -- Ned Scott 04:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• This request has been retitled to "Request for clarification–Episodes and characters 2" (note the "–" after clarification, as oppose to the customary ":"). This is to differentiate it from the similar "Request for clarification: Episodes and characters 2". Please note the difference between the two, and be careful in linking to either thread. Anthøny 18:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I suppose it was too much to hope that the editors fighting over these articles would take two cases as an adequate hint that they were out of line. Oh well; we can always try the hard way, then. Kirill ^(prof) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

For these motions, there are 13 active Arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.

TTN restricted

TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise having any involvement whatsoever with any article substantially related to a work of art or fiction (including, but not limited to, video games, movies, TV shows, novels, comic books, and so forth) or any element of such a work.

Support:

1. These senseless flareups will be stopped, one way or another. Kirill ^(prof) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
2. I'm beginning to think we should have done this at the start. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
3. While many of the issues that reach arbitration are controversial due to the nature of the topic and will always be heated topics of discussion, I do not see this as the case with this topic. Instead, I see the problems here are due more to the manner of interaction between users. I think that removing users will be effective and will not hesitate to expand the list of involved users that are banned from this topic. Also, the purpose of the restrictions on TNN were to stop controversial edits. The list of restrictions was not exhaustive in this sense, and all controversial edits should be recognized as such. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
5. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Kww restricted

Kww (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise having any involvement whatsoever with any article substantially related to a work of art or fiction (including, but not limited to, video games, movies, TV shows, novels, comic books, and so forth) or any element of such a work.

Support:

1. If you feel the urge to treat legitimate editors like vandals, it might be time to take a break from this topic. Kirill ^(prof) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

   It's become necessary. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC) I am rethinking; may reinstate this vote or change it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

2. See my above comment. And agree with Kirill. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

   Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Not convinced that restrictions on Kww are justified at the present. Seems to be based on a questionable interpretation of a single edit. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
2. On consideration, I'd rather a warning than a restriction at this time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Kww was instructed and warned and not restricted on the related ArbCom case. A 6 months restriction would be reasonable this time. If problems persist Kww would face the same measures applied to TTN above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Abstain:

---

Request for clarification: Episodes and characters 2

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

• Kyaa the Catlord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (left note on talk) (blocked for a week on April 27)
• Sgeureka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (left note on talk and has responded below)

Statement by Kyaa the Catlord

The decision text is : TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate.

My question is the following:

Can TTN request others to redirect articles as a proxy or is he under the same sort of restrictions as a banned user would be in cases where others would work as his proxy and redirect articles on his behalf? He has recently asked another user to make some redirects on articles where the other user had not acted in the previous month and three weeks (roughly) until encouraged to redirect by TTN. Thank you for the clarification in advance. (for further information and discussion please see Adminstrator's Noticeboard thread on TTN

Response to sg (who's name is really hard for me to spell, forgive me): I believe that's the crux of the problem TTN seems to not be able to initiate discussion per the ruling and bringing them to your attention is similar, in my view, to asking you to act as a proxy to work around the sanction which would be, in my view, terribly ungood behavior. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to sg2: I agree that doing so in the light is better than sneaking around and coordinating it off-wiki, but... the key question remains, is he allowed to initiate such conversation. From my reading of the ruling, it would be no. Its the "initiated by another user" bit that has caused me to ask for clarification. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Neil for providing diffs. (I'm new to this sort of thing.) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by sgeureka

Speaking metaphorically, arbcom prohibited TTN from bullying the other kids at school, but at the same time took away his right to self-defend when he is the target of bullying (or at least of gross unfairness). This risk was pointed out in the arbcom case, but no solution was offered. TTN asking a teacher for help (who may grant it or not based on their own good judgement) neither automatically makes the teacher TTN's proxy nor does it make TTN the bad guy. So I would like some clarification if (a) TTN is allowed to point out problematic articles/edits without editing or tagging the articles himself, (b) if I am allowed to agree with TTN's reasoning and (c) if I am allowed to edit problematic articles/edits. If the answer is yes to all three questions, there shouldn't be a problem. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to Kyaa: sg stands for Stargate, Eureka is the famous exclamation, long story. ;-) And just like bringing up an issue at a noticeboard or pointing out a recurring typo that needs fixing, I see nothing wrong in pointing out articles that fail a policy when you're prohibited doing so via the usual channels (tagging and discussing). I guess you'd agree that this transparent action is better than TTN contacting me via email about his "troubles" (which he never did, but I wouldn't hold it against him - if he can't even do the most trivial things without risking a witch hunt against him). – sgeureka ^t•c 12:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum I think I've got a better illustration of the situation, at least as far as I am involved: If someone disallows the boy who cried wolf to ever (publicly) cry wolf again, may the boy (privately) whipser in my ear that he sees a wolf, and am I allowed to chase the wolf off when I see fit? Note that most people never had an issue with how I dealt with wolves before. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum 2 Since there doesn't seem to be any clarification forthcoming, I'll summarize the current status now that the dust has settled. Of the seven articles that TTN asked me to revert back to redirects, one is not-redirected because I saw no major fault in it (i.e. I didn't mindlessly execute TTN's "request"), one is not-redirected although I redirected it (I had accidently confused it with another article which is in fact redirected, both are/were in a very bad shape), one is still in merge discussions (i.e. TTN is not the only one who saw fault in it), and four are redirected. I'll let that speak for itself. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Neil

• Relevant diffs:
  • [59] - asking another user to redirect a number of character articles (expressly forbidden in the Arbcom ruling)
  • [60] - suggesting a merge of character articles to another user (expressly forbidden in the Arbcom ruling)
  • [61] - expressed intent to keep such suggestions off-Wiki in future
• Suggest either an extention to the probation, a month's block, or a final warning prior to a year's block. Neıl ☎ 13:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

Relevant recent discussions in chronological order:

• TTN and notability tagging?
• And so it begins again.
• Closure
• TTN, again.

Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kww

Really, what part of He is free to contribute on the talk pages is so difficult to understand? I don't see that any diff provided is on anything other than a talk page.Kww (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I read that ruling as referring to article-space talk pages, not as an invitation to post on user-space talk pages requesting proxy edits. Catchpole (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly." Neıl ☎ 16:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Neil's quote still only restricts edits on article and project pages. He is free to lobby on talk pages for others to make edits on article and project pages.Kww (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Moreover, it would be very helpful if Arbcom could remind those who are disruptively undoing TTN's earlier efforts that this violates the spirit of the ruling. Asking for assistance in restoring good faith redirects firmly grounded in policy because of a disruptive editing pattern is certainly reasonable. Also, arbcom needs to make it clear that the ruling was not a victory for one side nor the other in the ongoing debate about notability for topics of fiction. (sorry to butt in your statement page Kww; I just agree with everything you said here.) Eusebeus (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Petitioning for an article to be merged without discussion and pointing out specifically that he himself cannot do it so he needs someone else to is not promoting good faith, it's bypassing the restriction placed on him by simply adding a middle man to do it instead. In effect this negates the whole purpose of limiting him.

Additionally his comments that he should probably resort to such communication in secret does not help good faith either, but instead paints that he's well aware that his actions are in violation: if they weren't, he wouldn't have anything to even worry about to consider such an alternative, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that ... I might take steps to avoid getting hauled in front of Arbcom every two days, even if Arbcom cleared me of wrongdoing every time.Kww (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know taking steps to avoid Arbcom appearances could end badly, as the "Wikilobby" drama reminds us. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it can, which is why I hope Arbcom puts a stop to these efforts to drive TTN underground. Kww (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe it can make TTN realize that he has to work under the restrictions it placed on him, not attempt to find loopholes and proxies to do the sort of things that got him under editting restrictions in the first place. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This neglects to recognize that TTN's problem was style, not content. His identification of bad articles that needed to be redirected was somewhere around 99% accurate. His effort to bulldoze his way through was what caused the trouble.Kww (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ned Scott

Can we get a comment form the arbs about if TTN is allowed to start discussions on notice boards/WikiProject talk pages? We also need to make it clear that there is a difference between a direct request to do something like merge or delete, and TTN stating that he believes something should be. As in, if he does to a talk page and says "I think this should be merged/etc" that should be perfectly fine, and not seen as the same as him going to someone's talk page and saying "hey, could you redirect X for me" (though I don't believe that to be a real problem here in the first place, since it really is harmless because the burden is put on the editor being asked). -- Ned Scott 01:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The key to the remedy was requiring that TTN work through article or project talk pages. Asking other editors to perform edits for him, rather than engaging in talk page discussion, clearly violates the spirit of the remedy. If necessary I would support a motion altering the remedy to say something to the effect that TTN is restricted only to discussing such matters on talk pages, though I hope that TTN will refrain from this sort of thing on his own. --bainer (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Just to echo Bainer's comment here, in the hope that it will help strengthen the clarity. I would also regretfully support the suggested modification if it is necessary, but would prefer no so to do. James F. (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

---