Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LessHeard vanU (talk | contribs) at 13:45, 19 November 2009 (→‎Statement by casually involved LessHeard vanU: wrong abbreviation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Maltese Nobility   16 November 2009 {{{votes}}}
JohnWBarber Versageek Lar   10 November 2009 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


Maltese Nobility

Initiated by Mobile historian (talk) at 23:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • No prior attempts at DR

Statement by Mobile historian

As one can see, the last page revision of this page was changed by User:Bali_ultimate.

The background is as follows: User: RGTraynor was invited to review and improve. It appears that given past experiences on this subject (see old Afds) User: RGTraynor asked for some guidance at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Royalty_and_Nobility#Maltese_nobility_redux.

Instead, an over-enthusiastic User:Bali_ultimate went along to tear everything up into this version, not to mention his inappropriate language.

All this is most unacceptable.

As for references, please care to read the publications cited in the last version before it was so callously vandalised as well as the links to the pdf docs which are readily available on line. Such a shame that Wikipedia is at the mercy of "editors" who shoot from their hip.

Given these unfortunate circumstances, no attempt is being made to resolve the dispute and an arbitration is being requested. This request applies to all other reverts made by User:Bali_ultimate and User: RGTraynor.

I apologise if I haven't filled this form out properly and I wait in hope that someone else will rearrange the format.

Thank you.

Mobile historian (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bali ultimate

If there is a dispute here it is a content dispute. My particular concerns in this "dispute" relate to WP:V WP:OR WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. The editor seeking arbitration is unhappy that the use of a website of no obvious or apparent reliability (it's possible that these things could be established; they have not been so far) is being contested. There is nothing for arbitrators to do here.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can shut this down/archive it whenever now. The complaining editor has been indefinitely blocked.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RGTraynor

I'm happy for people to refer to my posts earlier today concerning the subject articles, which comprise the sum total of my "involvement" in this matter up until now, and which adequately summarize my views concerning the articles themselves. Beyond that, "extraordinary" is about the most civil possible way to describe Mobile historian's actions in going instantly to ArbCom, without a single attempt to address the concerns of myself or others and without a single attempt at discussion, with the hopes of slapping prior restraint on my editing of these articles - something I have not, in fact, done to MH's revisions. This extremely disproportionate reaction to a request for reliable sourcing apart from sources previously found to be questionable at best is eerily familiar, and given this I not only hope this case is dismissed without delay, but that a checkuser be run to see if there's block evasion going on.  RGTraynor  01:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Party 3}

Statement by casually involved LessHeard vanU

Following a comment by the Clerk at my talkpage, I would confirm that I have indefinitely blocked Mobile Historian as an obvious sockpuppet of blocked editor Tancarville (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a result of an WP:ANI report. As this was obvious block evasion I indef'ed the account, and noted same on the editors talkpage. If there appears to be an overwhelming case for them to continue to present this Request I would have no objection to an unblock, although it is my understanding that that a sockpuppet account should remain blocked and any appeal be made through the original. I leave that determination up to the Clerks and Arbitrators considering this Request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

This request was reformatted and filed by Manning on behalf of Mobile historian. Manning (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Declined - this request has been declined by a majority (5+) of Arbitrators. This request will be archived in 24 hours. Manning (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Decline. Please seek dispute resolution assistance. Questions about policy interpretation can be handled by the admirable volunteers chiming in at the no original research, reliable sourcing, and other content noticeboards. Sockpuppet concerns can be handled via sock puppet investigations. Behavioral concerns should first be addressed by trying to reasonably discuss the problem with the editor and/or seeking the assistance of an outside mediator (such as from MedCab). Persistant conduct issues that cannot be so resolved may be addressed by requesting input from wikiquette alerts, the edit warring noticeboard, the incidents noticeboard, and other such venues. If you need further advice about the appropriate venue for moving forward, please seek the advice of experienced editors. Vassyana (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline: This can (and should) be handled perfectly well by the community at this point.  Roger Davies talk 05:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. As explained above, an arbitration case is the last resort in resolving disputes on Wikipedia. Earlier steps, as listed by Vassyana, should be used first and hopefully will address this matter. The filing party should be assured that this does not mean we think his concerns are unimportant; simply that this is not the best vehicle for addressing them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per my colleagues. Vassyana has provided some very good advice. Risker (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline Wizardman 00:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JohnWBarber Versageek Lar

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

Involved parties

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

Statement by JohnWBarber

Summary: Lar, angry with my civil comments directed toward him during a DRV debate, suggested to fellow checkuser Versageek that my account be investigated as a suspicious sock. Lar and Versageek won't make public this communication, raising suspicion about how much Lar was involved in the decision to block or how much he influenced it. The block was irregular in the way it was done: Versageek's only statement of the block was put on the talk page of the account I'd resigned from; no explanation was given other than the most general (and it was therefore confusing as to why her reaction was a block rather than discussion over a technical violation), no unblock feature was provided on my talk page, a longer (confusing) explanation was given a day later in a post at ANI, where I couldn't respond while still blocked. Both Lar and Versageek have been unable to justify the block by showing how I violated WP:SOCK policy or any other policy in any way beyond the technical, de minimus violations consistent with an editor who meant no harm and did no harm either to the encyclopedia or to any person (see nutgraph of WP:BLOCK). Lar and Versageek smeared me by calling my statements at DRV "disruptive" while refusing to specify what was disruptive when I politely asked each of them on their talk pages. To the extent they explained how I was disruptive, they mangled the meaning of "disruption". Lar's own statements at the DRV were demonstrably hotter under the collar, as were other statements at the DRV, and yet Versageek saw no need to block him. Versageek's idea that "deception" itself was "disruptive" contradicts WP:CLEANSTART in letter and spirit. Without speculating on anyone's motives, this has a stench to it. Had I been asked for an explanation rather than blocked, I could have shown I was harming no one and following (with no more than technical violations) WP:SOCK policy as it now exists (and with hardly even a technical violation of the policy as it existed when I first started alternate accounts) and that no harm to David Shankbone, the subject of the article under AfD and DRV, had happened or was likely to happen under my hands, much less any harm to anyone else or to the encyclopedia. Blocks for violations of WP:SOCK should conform to WP:BLOCK, and no adequate explanation has been given for why that didn't happen. The fact that I was blocked under these circumstances allowed a dramafest to develop that harmed my reputation and that may be brought up again in the future. In part, that can be fixed if ArbCom would rule on and specifically state whether or not anything I did was harmful.

Editors doing no harm to the encyclopedia or any persons should not be blocked. Checkusers should be able to understand WP:SOCK policy, explain it and explain their actions. Editors, particularly administrators and especially checkusers, who persist in saying that another editor is violating policy should either withdraw the comment when asked to do so by the victim, or adequately explain their reasons.

I'm collapsing all my previous comments, including responses to other statements and links, but they could also be moved to the talk page, if a clerk or the committee members prefer. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

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

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

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

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

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

@Vassyana You've gone to the other extreme from "wikilawyering". Let's call it WP:SPIRITLAWYERING. You've ignored the role that WP:CLEANSTART plays in WP:SOCK and what editors are reasonably supposed to make of it. The purpose -- the spirit -- of WP:SOCK is to prevent disruption and other harms, it isn't for admins to check off boxes and automatically block, and the spirit and words of WP:BLOCK were violated as well -- and you've also ignored that. We have policies so that editors can understand them. We give people admin powers so that they can protect the encyclopedia and other people, not protect their buddies or get back at people for opposing them. You ignored that. We have a case where checkusers are combining their official powers with disparaging lies -- not too strong a word given their inability to cite facts to back up what they say about me -- and you ignored that. If there was a case that could be made to defend Lar and Versageek, it would rely on showing how the statements and the block I've objected to were justified by the spirit of policy -- as shown by looking at its language, and if there were any ambiguity using commonsense interpretation of the policy. After all, that's what ArbCom decisions are explicitly based on. Neither you nor anybody else can cite a single damn thing that shows I was "deceptive" beyond what WP:CLEANSTART states or "disruptive" at all. And yet the block and the lies are justified by an appeal to spirits. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Vasayana's 2nd comment It's the very nature of an exception to define precisely what is being allowed and what isn't: There's no other way you can have an exception, which is what WP:CLEANSTART is. I didn't go over the line with regard to WP:CLEANSTART (although I readily admit I didn't look). Neither you nor anyone has addressed the fact that I was treated like crap (in several different ways) despite acting in good faith. I've addressed the fact that the multiple accounts, a holdover from when they were allowed, in no way harmed the encyclopedia or anyone in it. Nor did participation in the DRV. That kind of stuff is supposed to count. JohnWBarber (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Full response to Vassyana on the talk page. [50] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Versageek

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

Statement by Lar

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

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

Comment by Viridae

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

Statement by J.delanoy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does this look familiar?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Mackan79

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

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

Statement by SlimVirgin

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

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

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

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

Statement by Daniel

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

  • I would agree with that. I've asked him to reduce it. If things are no better within a day or so, I'll truncate without sympathy. AGK 19:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
  • Recuse. Daniel (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have asked JohnWBarber to reduce the length of his statement. AGK 19:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming that four arbs have not supported by Nov. 20, this will be archived at that time. MBisanz talk 06:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/1/1)

  • Pending AUSC This is precisely what AUSC is for. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse (and for the record, I have also recused on the AUSC case). I was actively involved in the deletion discussions surrounding the article that triggered the concerns regarding the JohnWBarber account. I would, however, encourage JohnWBarber to consider formally filing his concern with the AUSC as the earlier step in dispute resolution. Risker (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. You sure picked a bad time to exercise WP:CLEANSTART. A few days prior to October 5 (when "Noroton" became inactive for 23 days) SlimVirgin changed the policy from the long standing tradition of encouraging fresh starts for contributors who have had a poor run (If you have a negative track record ... and do not wish it to be tarnished by your prior conduct, you can simply discontinue using the old account) to prohibiting it in most cases (This is permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account). The previous wording has been around for years, and SlimVirgin's change has remained undisputed or discussed on the talk page. As a consequence, with your previous block log, policy did not support you having a right to exercise WP:CLEANSTART when you did it. This and many other aspects of the sock policy are in flux at the moment. While I can appreciate that you may not watch this policy closely, this request has not shown any concerted effort on your part to follow it. As a result of the very foundation of this request being on shaky ground, and your intentions not being communicated to anyone in advance, I am not keen on arbcom getting involved in divining whether your intentions were acceptable.
    The checkuser aspect should be addressed to AUSC, and an RFC can be initiated to obtain community feedback regarding whether the principles or spirit of SOCK were violated. My advice to people wanting to use an alternative account is to stay well within the margins, and that the only way to have a "safe" alternative account is to communicate your intentions to multiple checkusers or to arbcom, receive confirmation back from them that your intentions are within policy, and then stick to those intentions. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline; alleged impropriety of checkuser privileges falls squarely within AUSC's jurisdiction. — Coren (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, though send this to AUSC soon. Wizardman 07:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, per others. As an additional comment, without comment on the specific facts at play, SlimVirgin is quite right about the spirit of the policy. The wording of policies and guidelines are attempts to illustrate the underlying principles, not to produce a legal code complete with statutory requirements and loopholes. This is part of the reason that 3RR was (sensibly) merged into the edit warring policy. Edit warring is the problem, not exceeding some arbitrary number of reverts. In the same vein, deceptive and disruptive use of alternative or new accounts is the problem addressed by the sockpuppetry policy. Regardless of what the specific wording says, deceptive and disruptive usage of sockpuppets is against the fundamental principles underlying the sockpuppet policy. It is perfectly within standard practice to use blocks and other sanctions when there is a strong appearance of such a violation. It is unreasonable to expect common good practice to change for the exceptionally rare false positives in light of the potential disruption that would occur under a more lenient scheme. Vassyana (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With comment about the specific facts at play, CLEANSTART notes explicitly not to continue a clean start is incompatible with continuing the same editing patterns. It also notes that Any old accounts should be discontinued when undertaking a clean start (or else it is not really a clean break with the past). Continuing in similar areas, multiple accounts with alternating/overlapping edits, and jumping into a deletion discussion about a Wikipedian subject with whom you've had disputes are certainly not in accord with CLEANSTART. Vassyana (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarifying comments added and some struck after talk page discussion. Vassyana (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline: Per my colleagues, best handled by AUSC.  Roger Davies talk 05:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline at this time. Jurisdictionally, this is a borderline case, as the allegations concerning use of Checkuser fall squarely within AUSC's domain, but the allegations about unjustified blocking are more within the realm of a traditional ArbCom case. The fact that an AUSC review was actually underway even before the request for arbitration was filed, suggests to me that the best course of action is to continue and conclude that review. The Audit Subcommittee is aware of JohnWBarber's assertions in the request for arbitration. If he has any additional material he would like the subcommittee to consider, he should kindly e-mail it to the subcommittee's mailing list (or to any member for forwarding to the list) within 48 hours. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=326729923"