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

Macedonia

Initiated by Future Perfect at Sunrise at 09:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• ForeignerFromTheEast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (former Mr. Neutron (talk · contribs) and FunkyFly (talk · contribs), possibly VMORO (talk · contribs) before that)
• GriefForTheSouth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (former Jackanapes (talk · contribs), Wickedpedian (talk · contribs), Vulgarian (talk · contribs), Dimitar Navorski (talk · contribs))
• Jingiby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Li4kata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kékrōps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Asteraki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Avg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fatmanonthehorse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• INkubusse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dzole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Strich3d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gkmx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ireland101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vlatkoto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xstatik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hxseek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiating party)

(possibly others to be added).

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Not applicable, this is a long-term pattern of disruptive nationalist behaviour spanning dozens of articles, multiple users and more than one content issue.

Statement by Fut.Perf.

The next big nationalism case after Azerbaijan-Armenia, Eastern Europe etc. There are three main disputes between four neighbouring nations here:

• Between the Republic of Macedonia and Greece about the name "Macedonia". Currently settled in a fragile consensus respected by most of the long-standing contributors here (see WP:MOSMAC), but still some disruptive outbreaks from time to time (as here, here]).
• Between Macedonians and Bulgarians about the separateness of the two nation. Currently the most violent domain, with almost daily revert wars (e.g. Boris Sarafov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Saints Cyril and Methodius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Jim Karygiannis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Nikola Karev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). Occasional severe BLP problems (Aleksandar Donski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Kiro Gligorov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)).
• Between Macedonians and Albanians about mutual minorities. Mostly lame revert wars over the mentioning of Albanian geographical names in Macedonian articles (e.g. Skopje (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Republic of Macedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)).

The players in this edit war are a relatively small number of established ringleaders, plus a large and volatile group of short-lived accounts. The balances of edit-warring firepower are such that the four nations involved have established a local pecking order of POV-pushing: Greek tendentious editing can generally get away with murder; Bulgarian tendentious editing will have its way as long as it's not against the Greeks; Albanian editors get their way because Greeks and Bulgarians come to their aid just to annoy the Macedonians; and most Macedonian editors are immobilized to such a degree they can hardly get an edit through without having it reverted immediately - leading to predictable outbreaks of sock attacks and other forms of retaliatory disruption from their side.

We need topic bans for a couple of ringleaders and revert paroles for at least a dozen others, plus administrative carte blanche for dealing with new disruption, à la Armenia-Azerbaijan.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ·ΚέκρωΨ·

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's claim that "Greek tendentious editing can generally get away with murder" is baffling, given that the "fragile consensus" he mentions has been struck at the expense of the Greek position, and any dissent is immediately censored. The name Macedonia is used throughout Wikipedia in a way that is highly offensive to Greeks, especially Macedonians; see Macedonia naming dispute for further information. Furthermore, his portrayal of one side as the perennial victims is unhelpful in a complicated dispute of this nature. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 10:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Sam Blacketer

I have been drawn into this a few times, for example declining Xstatik's unblock request (see User talk:Xstatik and note the belief that any administrator who disagreed with him must be part of a Greek conspiracy), and taking action against Dimorsitanos who was disruptively attempting a copy and paste page move to change the title of the (ex-Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia to Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia. I am not sure I follow Future Perfect at Sunrise's analysis of the 'pecking order' here but I do endorse his encouragement of an arbitration hearing to settle what administrators may do to prevent disruption on this set of articles. Sam Blacketer 11:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Avg

It is true that this is a very sensitive issue to all parties involved. However, being sensitive does not equal being nationalistic. The recent surge in edit warring occurs because tensions are extremely heightened outside Wikipedia. These weeks or even days are a turning point in the Macedonia naming dispute, since UN is drafting a final plan to be accepted by both RoM and Greece before RoM's entry to NATO. Apart from that, I'm disappointed that User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is clearly taking sides in this dispute. Perhaps he's been long enough to these topics to have lost the balance he should have as an administrator? As a Greek I feel insulted by the use of an expression such as "Greeks can get away with murder", especially without any diff supporting it. So I certainly support this is escalated, in order for ArbCom to establish some guidelines for both editors and admins. --   Avg    14:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Moreschi

Strongly urge acceptance; Macedonia has been a hotspot of nationalist edit-warring ever since Wikipedia started, see User:Moreschi/The Plague and relevant subpages. It's high time this troublesome topic was finally dealt with properly. Take the case, ban a couple of the most egregious wrongdoers to show the rest we mean business, and then apply sweeping remedies as in Armenia-Azeri Round 2: ones that give us Alliterative Admins Plentiful Powers to dole out Beautiful Blocks. Cheerio! Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

---

Winter Soldier 2

Initiated by Heimstern Läufer (talk) at 04:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• TDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Heimstern (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiating party)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[2], [3]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-07 Mark Lane (author)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Long-term edit warring at Winter Soldier Investigation

Statement by Heimstern

TDC and Xenophrenic have been edit warring for quite some time at various articles: Winter Soldier Investigation, Mark Lane (author) and Vietnam Veterans Against the War. The edit warring lasted for days at times, for example, in late August and early September at Mark Lane (author). The first arbitration case on this topic concerned TDC and an anonymous editor known as 165.247.xxx; this checkuser request suggests that Xenophrenic is likely the same as the anonymous editor in this case. After seeing a recent three-revert rule report against TDC, I brought this to the incident noticeboard in the hopes of pursuing a community sanction, but the discussion has been unproductive. Several allegations and denials make this case complex: TDC accuses Xenophrenic of being a sockpuppet, which Xenophrenic denies. Xenophrenic, furthermore, denies being the same editor as the anon in the original arbitration case, though few others seem to believe him. In short: I feel this case is too complex for community sanctions and that the Committee should determine a proper solution to this problem. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by partially involved Chaser

I think we may be able to dodge arbitration here. TDC was happy to go to 1RR in the ANI thread (with conditions), and Xenophrenic just added a voluntary editing restriction to his own userpage [4]. These two have no shortage of other bad blood, but I think earlier steps in dispute resolution, like article RFCs, might benefit the situation more than arbitration if we aleady have the 1RR editing restriction in place.--chaser - t 07:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by TDC

I don’t believe that this arbitration is warranted. I proposed several remedies over at ANI that would end any editing conflicts on the articles mentioned, dead in their tracks. I also do not think this is warranted because the other editor involved, user:Xenophrenic, is a sockpuuet of another user (yet to be clearly determined who that user is but obviously a sockpuppet), and no one, except for him naturally, disagrees with that. Holding me to the same level of scrutiny as a disruptive WP:SPA, and unconditionally providing that SPA with a forum is madness. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

---

Jasenovac concentration camp

Initiated by Rjecina at 15:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Rjecina
• PaxEquilibrium

dispute resolution is not possible because this is simple question with only possible answers Yes or No. Mediation is not possible because voting will become nationalistic fight between users from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia.

Statement by Rjecina

Question is simple if Jasenovac is one of Holocaust extermination camps. From my knowledge and from US Holocaust museum (list of Holocaust extermination camps) knowledge he is not because there is "only" 6 Holocaust extermination camps and this are Auschwitz · Bełżec · Chełmno · Majdanek · Sobibór and Treblinka. I have come here to ask for decision so this question which has started in 2006 with edits of single purpose account User:Soece so that this question will be solved. Even PaxEquilibrium know that there is "only" 6 Holocaust extermination camps [5] but he is reverting. What I, he or somebody else think is personal thinkings and nothing more or less. Wikipedia need to accepted historical truth in articles and not warmonger nationalism. I ask for decision so that all future similar writing that Jasenovac is Holocaust extermination camps can be reverted without looking to 3RR rule. Similar to that if your decision will be that he is 1 of historical Holocaust extermination camps all edits which say different can be reverted without problem.

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

• Reject. The Arbitration Committee does not rule on content. Mackensen (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Decline per Mackensen. Paul August ☎ 18:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Reject per Mackensen. Do an article RFC or use other methods to get more editors to give an opinion about content issues. If there are user conduct issues, then follow dispute resolution process...discuss your concerns, involve other editors, and then if needed, do an editor conduct RFC if not resolved. Arbitration is the last step in dealing with serious editor conduct problems. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Reject, per Mackensen. Kirill 04:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Eyrian

Initiated by Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) at 12:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Eyrian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Nwwaew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[6]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Not applicable in this situation

Statement by Nwwaew

Per this CheckUser, it appears Eyrian has either gone rogue or created sockpuppets. I hereby request that the Arbitration Committee desysop Eyrian immediately as an emergency measure to prevent vandalism.

Statement by Isotope23

This has already been brought up in the Alkivar arbitration several days ago. As far as I can tell, Eyrian has not committed any vandalism since this was brought up there, so I'm not sure I see a reason for an emergency desysoping, though if Eyrian's behavior isn't being considered as part of the Alkivar arbitration (sorry, I've not kept up with it enough to know if this is now being rolled into the original case) it might be worth accepting a case simply to look into the allegations.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I just reviewed the proposals at the Alkivar case. It may be worth reviewing Eyrian's behavior separately, though I still don't see this as an emergency situation.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

I suggest that the most dignified solution here would be for Eyrian to resign the tools. Eyrian has not been added to the list of parties in the Alkivar case and two arbitrators have moved to close. To the best of my knowledge, Alkivar did not operate any sockpuppets. Eyrian, by contrast, has multiple sockpuppets in violation of the good hand/bad hand provision of WP:SOCK and has placed himself in an untenable position by both denying and confirming that one of them was his. I had identified that sockpuppet as functionally indistinguishable from JB196, a banned vandal, and blocked it indefinitely. I have no objection to the proposed arbitration case, however, if Eyrian thinks these actions are defensible. Durova^Charge! 15:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by W.marsh

The more I look at this, the more I think ArbCom either needs to pull the Alkivar case back into the voting phase or even evidence phase, and/or remove anything related to Burntsauce/etc. from the proposed decision, and add a finding to explain what ArbCom thinks of the connection between Alkivar and Burntsauce. Which to do hinges on whether there's evidence that Alkivar was a major player in the Burntsauce/etc. thing, or just a peripheral admin who happened to support Burntsauce on occasion. As the ANI thread, the new evidence on the Alivar evidence page, and this ArbCom case show... there's a lot of unanswered questions here related to JB196 and perhaps Alkivar's relation to him.

In other words, before closing the Alkivar case, we should figure out specifically how it related to the JB196/Burntsauce thing. I might be wrong, but there seems to be a lot of confusion in the air. --W.marsh 15:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by User:Rocksanddirt

My observations on the Alkivar situation are that the case should be completed esentially as is by the Committee and that the actions of Eyrian should be looked at separately by the committee. --Rocksanddirt 17:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131

The situation as I see it is that Eyrian has had a long-standing objection to extensive trivia/pop culture sections in articles [7]. After the Alkivar/Burntsauce situation came up on the admin noticeboard, Eyrian useds sockpuppet accounts JohnEMcClure (talk · contribs) and Varlak (talk · contribs) in an intentional breaching experiment [8]. Because the edits were identical in style to triva-blanking edits by Burntsauce, the initial assumption that the accounts were Burntsauce socks was reasonable. The edits were controversial less because of their content than the manner in which they were made. (I have recently significantly trimmed the trivia and pop culture sections of two of JohnEMcClure's targets without controversy.)

Copying Burntsauce in the middle of a controversy over Burntsauce's edits was definitely not admin-approved behavior, and retiring with tools intact is an unsatisfying resolution. But, Eyrian's breaching experiment was rather brief and did not involve the misuse of admin tools, in marked contrast to the evidence and findings in the Alkivar case. The solution I would recommend is to remove Eyrian's sysop tools immediately, without holding a case, and ask him to have a discussion with ArbCom about the situation. If he has permanently retired, then no further action is needed. If he wishes to return and can make a satisfactory explanation (and apology) to the Committee, the Committee can restore his privileges at that time, or open a case for a full review if it is divided. I'm not sure a 2 month public flogging benefits anyone at this point.

Statement by Lid

My connection to this case is through that I was the person who posted the checkuser on JohnEMcClure and that I also posted a thread on ANI about Eyrian asking for his actions to be analysed however it was concluded that it was part of the Alkivar arbitration case nd thus a committee matter.

There seems to be some misinformation and misrepresentation of the facts of the Alkivar case being spread around; Alkivar is not a puppet master, Alkivar is not intimately related to JB196 and the relationship of Alkivar to JB196 was JB196 using Alkivar to disrupt articles. This is not the sole part of the case, in fact until I posted my evidence it was only mentioned once on the evidence page and even then it wasn't the crux of my evidence. My evidence was largely based on the preferential treatment Alkivar gave to Burntsauce in many content disputes.

In regards to Eyrian I believe this case should be taken as it has had a peculiar sequence of events that include lying, sockfarms, disruption and incivility all from an admin.

1. The Alkivar arbitration case is opened and it is noticed a new user JohnEMcClure (talk · contribs) has been created and immediately started editting in a matter similar to banned vandal JB196's MO, including following around Burntsauce's edits to revert to Burntsauce.
2. Durova blocks JohnEMcClure as a sock of JB196
3. JohnEMcClure posts a request for unblocking stating "I'm nobody's sockpuppet; is it impossible to agree with someone else?"
4. AGK declines pointing out that even if he was not a sock and only agreeing with Burntsauce and Alkivar he was also incivil, disruptive and all-round poorly behaved user.
5. Inactive admin Eyrian then appears on ANI posting a request for block review stating that JohnEMcClure is his puppet and he did not think he had violated any puppet policies.
6. The revelation it was Eyrian confused many users as Eyrian had at no point been connected to the case at all and Eyrian was an inactive administrator.
7. During the discussion Eyrian made reference to another sockpuppet of his and also that the accounts were "disposable" disruptive accounts, an admission considered bizarre by users as it flew in the face of numerous obvious policies and that an admin didn't see the problem was confusing.
8. Eyrian then disappears deleting his userpages and some of the JohnEMcClure pages just before he goes.
9. I post a RFCU due to that some users aren't even sure Eyrian is in fact the sockmaster and may just be messing around, and if he was to find the puppet he made reference to before.
10. CU completed uncovering two socks and "numerous IPs".

The actions of Eyrian fly in the face of how an admin should behave and his departure should not disguise the fact that he has retained his admin tools, and to another extent his account. Although he has not used his admin tools maliciously they should not be in the hands of a user who is an admitted sockpuppeteer with disruptive sockpuppets that leaves when public opinion does not agree with his.

Statement by Casliber

I'd second Lid's summary above. To put it simply: An administrator is someone who can be trusted with the tools. At the bare minimum, Eyrian has admitted lying above WRT User:JohnEMcClure. He also admits here [9] to 'tested the line somewhat more than necessary' (i.e. trolling). Also, there is no record of remorse or concession in any of his postings, leading one to the conclusion that he thinks he has done nothing wrong. Thus, he cannot be trusted and shouldn't be an admin regardless of whether he ever edits again.

I concede I'm not uninvolved, I entered into one edit war and several other discussions on AfDs where I was taken aback by the hardline uncompromising attitude and disruptive mass deletions taking place. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Wikidemo

I was trolled by JohnEmcClure, an administrator's sockpuppet. Eyrian admits he conducted an "experiment" in going "over the line". Eyrian's provocation cost time and aggravation to me and various others participating in the Alkivar arbitration. We were alarmed at yet another in a series of content deleting sockpuppets, deflected its contentious edits, went through three rounds on AN/I, a block, a block review, a check user, and now this case. Eyrian lied by denying it, and made bad faith accusations against me of WP:BITEing and stalking a new user when he knew I was getting close to uncovering his deception. He vowed an uncompromising edit war, in which one of us would force our opinion on on the other. When caught he was defiant and not forthcoming about his other sockpuppets. Now he is absent from this arbitration. At best he exercised terribly poor judgment; at worst he sabotaged Wikipedia for his obscure ends. There is no reason to believe he will not sockpuppet again. We lend administrative tools for overseeing the project, not as a personal entitlement. Whether he used tools or not in this instance, we cannot trust them to someone who has been so erratic and improper. We need to take them back. ArbCom is the community's only recourse, and the only viable solution is an indefinite de-sysop and/or block.

Detailed background I have no prior dealings with Eyrian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) or his apparent sockpuppets JohnEMcClure (talk · contribs), Varlak (talk · contribs), 68.163.65.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and

. The Alkivar incident, where I first encountered Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Burntsauce (talk · contribs), involved Alkivar's use of administrative tools to defend Burntsauce's contentious deletion of "popular culture" sections from 168 articles in league with a notorious puppetmaster. During the subsequent arbitration Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (talk · contribs). identified a new suspected sockpuppet who was re-deleting content from the same articles.[10]. LGR provided a link[11] to the mystery user's contribution history, which revealed Burntsauce-like "popculturectomies" to five of Burntsauce's 168 articles ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16]) and two new ones ([17], [18]). The very first edit from this new account proclaimed "Burntsauce is correct"; others summarized "I agree with Burntsauce and Neil", "More trivia junk gone", "Terrible. Gone", and "None of that is important whatsoever. It needs to stay gone". He also nominated an article for deletion [19] and voted in an AFD.

I reviewed each deletion in depth and decided that four of the seven contained material likely to be sourceable that was relevant to the article. I restored these ([20], [21], [22], [23]) with appropriate summaries: ("After reviewing, much of the material is useful. Please discuss or source", "There is no blanket policy against lists. This one is useful, and it is annotated.", "Depictions of a mythological being are a relevant part of the mythology. The material is sourceable so please be constructive and add sources rather than delete", "info re. ghostbusters is useful. I don't agree with deletion"). I integrated the content into one article[24] as WP:TRIVIA suggests, and explained on another that I left material deleted because it was irrelevant[25], before turning to more important wikibusiness, creating two new articles, here and here, improving two others here and here, voting in some WP:AFDs, assessing articles for a wikiproject, etc.

Eyrian would have none of that. I learned from LGR[26] that Eyrian's sockpuppet had accused me of "stalking" him and had re-deleted all four sections ([27], [28], [29], [30]) with summaries ranging from rude to uncivil ("Did you actually read the section?", "Re-purge the trivia junk. No, it's not important. Whatever "Reviewing" you're doing is flawed. Reading up, it seems to be a habit of yours.", "Not a chance. Go stalk someone else"). I left a warning for civility, disruption, and edit warring[31]. Altough convinced now that the edits were in bad faith, I patiently explained the WP:TRIVIA guideline and the WP:CONSENSUS policy to follow if he wanted to change the articles, and left a courtesy notice that a claim had arisen in the Alkivar case that he was a possible sockpuppet. I restored the content a second time ([32], [33], [34], [35]), and began improving two of the other articles ([36], [37]) per the guidelin. I explained what I was doing and why to arbcom [38].

Shortly thereafter Durova announced she had blocked JohnEMcClure as a suspected sockpuppet of JB196.[39], [40]. Eyrian used its talk page [41] to accuse me of biting him as a "new user", to announce that he had reviewed my edit history and deemed me a promoter of trivia, to vow continued edit warring ("There will be no compromise. One of us will force our opinion on the other."), to deny that it was a puppet of anybody, and to say "I don't think anything I've said is over the line." Hours later Eyrian asked for a block review [| block review], admitting JohnEMcClure was an alternate account he created "designed to be entirely disposable" as an "experiment" to "see what would happen if I tested the line somewhat more than necessary." He claimed he was "making a determination if I would be any happier if I returned; it's clear I wouldn't be" and said he had "no investment" in the account.

Eyrian has a history of contentious edits and runs in the same circles as JB196, Alkivar, and Burntsauce. His methods, attitude, and language are the same: deleting professional wrestling bios months ago, and now popular culture sections, with deception and rude, insulting treatment to any who would oppose him. A prior RFC raised sockpuppeting and other issues here. A checkuser confirmed JohnEMcClure as a sockpuppet and found others he had not yet disclosed[42]. He must have known he was interfering with a matter in arbitration - he deleted the same articles, he reviewed the history, and I told him explicitly. He left Wikipedia a huff, deleting and salting his and his sockpuppet's pages on the way out [43].

Clerk notes

Four votes to accept and open, noted. To open Friday absent some change. Newyorkbrad 15:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

• Accept to examine the matter in detail; there seems no need for emergency action at this point. Kirill 04:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Accept per Kirill. I think the matter needs review. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. As Kirill, no emergency; misuse of admin powers doesn't appear to be happening Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Helicopter (elix/helix)

Initiated by Anthony Appleyard at 06:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Born2flie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• I put a message in User talk:Born2flie about this request for arbitration. Anthony Appleyard 06:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Discussion inTalk:Helicopter#elix / helix and User talk:Anthony Appleyard/2007/October#elix / helix
• Mediation: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Helicopter

Statement by Anthony Appleyard

Whether the Greek original of the "helic-" part of the word "helicopter" was "helik-" or "elik-". The concensus of the evidence points to the 'h' being present. But Born2flie says that there was no 'h', because of one stray case when someone missed out the Greek rough breathing sign. I know Ancient Greek well and I have reference books about it. I want to avoid a long edit war. Anthony Appleyard 06:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Newyorkbrad

This isolated content dispute is unlikely to be accepted for an arbitration case, and it might be best to withdraw the case. Instead, I suggest seeking a third opinion or filing a content request for comment to obtain further input from editors with the relevant background who might not otherwise happen across that particular page. In addition, I believe one of the arbitrators has ancient Greek expertise and he might be induced to comment (qua editor, not qua arbitrator) once the request for arbitration is resolved. Newyorkbrad 14:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Reject, content dispute. Kirill 13:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Reject, content. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. A content dispute that needs more input from uninvolved editors. Seek out more help from experienced users. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Reject, per above. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Reject, content dispute. James F. (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Kmweber

Initiated by Mercury at 19:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Kmweber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mercury (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Current discussion on WP:AN

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber

[44]

[45]

[46]

Talk and archives

Statement by Mercury

I'll be brief in this summary. In the event this case is accepted I'll introduce evidence and comments at the appropriate places. This editor has commented to Requests for adminship, time and time again, with the same comment. "I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. The opinion is unhelpful and contains a bad faith assumption. That in itself is not an issue. The issue is that this editing style has been discussed many times, and linked below. The editor insists on a consensus the he should stop, before he stops. However, the fact that we are having these discussions in a perennial frequency is causing disruption. Making these comments after so many discussions about them, appears to be trolling, tendentious. The editor has been blocked for disruptions recently, and unblocked. I will not reblock, or file yet another RFC, for more discussion. I request the committee to look into the behavior here. Mercury 19:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved AnonEMouse

Strongly advise this be withdrawn. Fast. If this case is accepted, I suspect it will not end the way Mercury thinks it will. Indefinitely blocking a user for opposing RfAs, when the ongoing Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kmweber has overwhelming commentary that criticise Kmweber, but strongly emphasize that "Kmweber cannot and should not be blocked for his opinions" ... I would not like to lose an administrator for this. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by tangentially involved Neil

Agree with AnonEMouse. An indefinite block was appallingly poor judgement, particularly given the outcome of the RFC. Neil ☎ 00:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by kinda involved Amarkov

The issue is indeed being brought up perenially. But if there is never a consensus to do anything, why is that a problem? We can't start blocking people because others like to complain a lot. -Amarkov moo! 23:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by semi-involved Mr.Z-man

I simply cannot believe the outcome of that RFC. How the community would be willing to tolerate such bad faith assumption is beyond me. The RFA nomination procedure explicitly allows self-nomination. It even puts it before nominating other people; one could make the argument that it implicitly encourages it. Kmweber is opposing people's RFAs with the same reason, apparently without even looking at their contributions. "But he's only expressing his opinion" - but his opinion is almost completely unrelated to the discussion at hand. How is opposing based on something explicitly allowed helpful? My opinion is that we have too many of some types of articles; I'm not going to nominate things for deletion with that reasoning though - that would be disruptive as AFD comments are supposed to be based in policy. And then there's the assumption of faith; I'm completely bewildered how people don't see calling a user power-hungry (I thought admins were janitors) based on the user doing something explicitly allowed without reviewing their editing history is not an assumption of bad faith. If you want to get the rules changed to disallow self noms, the venue for that is WT:RFA. Going on the RFAs of every self nom to give the same opposition reason in some attempt to change the rules is a blatant violation of WP:POINT. The fact that this dispute got this far, when it should have stopped with some warnings to Assume Good Faith is just absolutely ridiculous. (Sorry if this came off a little rant-like) Mr.Z-man 00:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Heimstern

It seems few dispute that Kurt Weber's actions are annoying; however, the discussion at the admin noticeboard suggests some widespread disagreement among admins and others concerning whether or not Kurt's actions were disruptive. I think this could boil down to the question of where to draw the line between disruption and mere annoyance. (Edit summaries like this one as well as comments like this one tip the scales marginally toward disruption, at least in my mind.) The committee may wish to consider if it can shed light on the answer to this question in deciding whether or not to take this case, since this seems to be a contested issue within the community. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by involved Nick

I think this can be resolved without the need for Arbitration, but I remain slightly disappointed that a user is able to use the consensus from an RfC to make comments which some people find upsetting, others find annoying, and a few find disruptive. We're a collaborative project that relies upon editors all trying to get along, sadly, simply being annoying or upsetting never warrants a block, but it's damaging to the community none the less. There was no consensus to uphold the block, there's no consensus for a topic ban and there's possibly no consensus his comments are still acceptable. I know Arbcom likely wouldn't make any judgements on the actual comments in question, which makes any topic ban or site ban completely unlikely.

Just a quick clarification about the block, I had no intention for it to be a permanent block, had I wished that, I would have gone for some sort of community ban, it was always going to be overturned, I hoped that would be when there was some resolution, such as a pledge to cease making those comments, there was no consensus for unblocking solely on that basis alone, and he was unblocked because there was no consensus to do anything otherwise, i.e keep him blocked, something I was completely happy with, as I made clear within a matter of minutes of the block. I knew it would be controversial which is why I started the discussion on the Admin Noticeboard, and why I made it perfectly clear anybody could unblock and I would be fine with that. Nick 10:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry

So long as thoughtcrime is not contrary to policy, there is nothing actionable in civil expression of minority opinion. So long as consensus can change is part of policy, we have to allow alternative and minority opinions to be expressed in the appropriate discussion forums. Accepting this case attacks our policy Wikipedia:Consensus, so it would be worse for Wikipedia to accept this case than for Kurt to consider offering this opinion in RFAs. I urge the committee to realize that rejecting the case is in the best interests of Wikipedia. GRBerry 04:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved User:Citicat

While Kmweber's motivations cannot be known, it does seem clear that his actions have a tendency toward being disruptive (or at least annoying), and that he has no interest in being influenced by any guidelines other than his own. In addition to the RFA issue, KM also comments on many AFDs, usually stating that if something exists, it deserves an article. [47] Again, while I don't know Kmweber's motivations for doing this, I feel the end result is only to antagonize other editors without anything really useful being accomplished. Does any of this require arbcom action? I doubt it. But it would be a real positive if Km could just state his positions on his user page and stop advocating them in these discussions. CitiCat ^♫ 05:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Carcharoth

I strongly support GRberry's statement above. I was amazed to see arbitrators considering acceptance of this case. If they do accept it, I would urge them to look at the actions of the blocking admin and those who encouraged/supported him. I would also ask FloNight if she is really proposing a topic ban on voting at RfAs, and to consider the consequences of this. Carcharoth 17:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to Kscottbailey: I am urging the Arbcom to examine the actions of User:Nick, who carried out the block of User:Kmweber, not User:Mercury, who filed the arbitration request. I am not the only user pointing this out. User:AnonEMouse has said "If this case is accepted, I suspect it will not end the way Mercury thinks it will." (though I am presuming here that he is referring to the arbcom examining the judgment of Nick), and User:Neil, who said "An indefinite block was appallingly poor judgement, particularly given the outcome of the RFC". User:Splash has also stated the same thing. As for whether it is so cut-and-dried, have you seen the response to the opposes that User:Mikkalai has been giving recently? See, WT:RFA#Response to recent bullying. Once you start saying people like User:Kmweber cannot hold their opinions, where does it end? Once, there was a problem with people not pointing out that some RfA opposes were silly. Now there is a problem with people sometimes ganging up to shout down a lone oppose. RfA has never been about producing a "perfect" discussion, or result, but the moment people start saying that certain things "are not allowed", or should be restricted to a protest notice on a talk page, then discussion is being stifled and that can have a chilling effect on a community. In my view, the true disruption to the project comes from those who think they can micromanage things and insist on making a big deal about Kmweber's comments, thus exacerbating the situation. Carcharoth 16:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no consensus to suggest the block I placed was "bad". Please cease acting like there is. The community is as split on my block as they are on whether or not Kurt's comments constitute disruption. Nick 10:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Some further responses: Nick, if you knew the community was split, why did you place the block? Kscottbailey, Kurt's self-nom of himself at RfA was raised at the RfC. Kurt's response can be seen here. As for the reference to Speakers' Corner by Dorftrottel, let's not paint Kurt as the Brian Haw of Wikipedia. Those who are responding to Kurt are creating far more drama and time wasting than he has ever done. Carcharoth 14:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But is it easier to educate people to ignore/tolerate his comments than to ask (or make) him stop and reconsider his approach and goals? Btw, I don't think this reasoning amounts to fighting xenophobia by deporting foreigners, in case that's what you meant. — Dorftrottel⁠ 15:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a big difference between asking someone to do something and making them do something. It worries me that you seem to be happy to consider one or the other without really differentiating them ["ask (or make)"]. As for your xenophobia and deportation analogy - that ranks up there with the Speakers' Corner analogy or my Brian Haw analogy. I think we should stop trying to come up with analogies, as none really seem to work. But really, WP:RFARB is not the place for discussion. That should take place back at the RfC. Carcharoth 16:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, an RfC has no real consequence. An RFArb does. His low-level disruption was exactly what Jimbo was talking about when he indeffed Miltopia. This is exactly the forum for this discussion. K. Scott Bailey 16:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't claim to speak for Jimbo (I'd suggest asking on his talk page if he thinks Kurt's actions and Miltopia's actions are comparable), and please, let's not get into a discussion here. The RfC is the place to discuss this. It says at the top of the page in bold "This is not a page for discussion". It also says, "You are trying to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention; you are not trying to prove your case at this time. If your case is accepted for Arbitration, an evidence page will be created that you can use to provide more detail." I've probably overdone things here as well, but there as been low-level back-and-forth going on here for days, and it is probably coming close to disrupting the requests for arbitration process. Let's stop it. Now. Carcharoth 16:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Note: this is not suppressing discussion, merely moving it to the correct venue. If anyone wants to compare moving this discussion to the RfC to kicking Kurt off the RfA pages, then please do so, but not here. Clerks, feel free to remove all this threaded discussion, but please leave a link to the page history.

Jimbo? Miltopia? Lulz? I don't see any connection. Also, ok, no more analogies then (although I have another dozen or so up my sleeve). With regard to RfC/RfAr: The most important point imo is precisely that the kind of rationale that drives Kmweber is in the wrong place in individual RfAs. Irony? I think so! — Dorftrottel⁠ 19:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I was unclear, but my point is simply that this sort of discussion should either be at the RfC, or at an opened arbitration case. This is just a request stage. If rejected (as seems likely), the RfC is the place to return to. If opened, all this should have taken place on the evidence/workshop pages. This long discussion (that shouldn't be taking place), is more comparable to the threaded discussions that sometimes erupt at RfAs when an oppose vote annoys people. Similarly, the filing of this case has led to people engaging in discussion at an inappropriate length, and in the wrong place and time. We should have more respect for the arbitration process, even if people think that Kurt's opposes show disrespect for the RfA process. And I'm not going to say any more. Please, if we must continue, do so at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kmweber#Continuation of discussion from the arbitration request. Carcharoth 11:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

<----undent

I'm relatively certain that most people understand I wasn't claiming to "speak for Jimbo" on this matter. That's a red herring if ever there was one. I was simply saying that Weber is doing a similar thing as MILTOPIA was doing, when he was banned by Jimbo: low-level disruption, just below the threshold that would cause ArbCom to unanimously take up this case. If he were putting "Oppose I view this self-nomination as evidence that this user is a bad-faith a--hat", that would be above the threshold, and he would be banned. By staying just below the threshold, he disrupts a bit less, and keeps from being banned, or (it seems) even having his case taken up by ArbCom. That's a mistake, in my opinion, but one I can do nothing about. And seriously now, how could you have POSSIBLY thought I was "speaking for Jimbo" in my previous post? K. Scott Bailey 21:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by User:Splash

Clearly, this was a monumentally bad block, and spouting stuff about Jimbo Wales's RfC is just misleading, since Jimbo explicitly and repeatedly said not to go banhammering all over the place. This is the trouble with some admins - they like being able to leverage greater power than they actually possess, and the Arbcom, Foundation and Jimbo need to be more acutely aware of this than they have been up to now. Admins equally should more aware that you possess in general only your own authority, and attempting to exercise a higher authority is generally to attempt to suspend your own judgement in favour of someone else's - almost never a smart idea. I do not think the block is arbitratable, though, but even so I'm mystified as to why the blocking admin is not named as a party to the request.

On the topic of Kmweber. Well, his opposes on RfA fall below the "do I care?" threshold. I would urge everyone to ignore them as the worthless posturing they are. The crats know what to do with such things, we can be certain of that. Just leave them be: do not indent, do not 'innocuously enquire' for the reasons (you fool noone doing that), do not mark as for crat attention, do not write on his talk page. They fall below the relevance threshold.

However. It is apparent to anyone with eyes that Kmweber's posturing is disturbing the flow of things. This is fine, ordinarily, if we are learning something by it, as long as it stays away from experimental demonstration of a point. However, we have moved far beyond such a point (if ever we were the educational side of it), and clearly time and energy is being absorbed by it. This despite the obviousity of my previous paragraph (people don't know what's good for them). I would therefore suggest that the matter is arbitratable, by way of wishing to squelch things that detract from productivity and cause disruption without any foreseeable good emerging from it.

On the much-vaunted RfC. Please, everyone, get over it. It's just people wanting to say holy things about RfA, openness, freedom, blah and blah. It isn't useful. Splash - tk 13:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by slightly involved User:Kscottbailey

I equate what Weber is doing at both RfA and AfD to what the Jimbo-banned Miltopia (sp?) did for a long time: low-level disruption that's JUST low enough to keep from getting banned, but high enough to effectively (if only in a minor way) disrupt the project. Additionally, such votes often cause a "pile-on" effect. As oppose votes are worth MUCH more in an RfA (in a practical sense; I know it's technically not a vote), as there have to be 4 supports for every oppose to nearly guarantee passage, this is NOT a minor issue at all. As such, I would support acceptance of this request. K. Scott Bailey 14:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to Carcharoth: Surely you're not using threats to attempt to get Mercury to drop this request? That there are ArbCom members who support taking up the dispute should tell you it's not nearly so cut-and-dried as you would like to believe. -Struck per my misunderstanding of the target of Carcharoth's comment.- K. Scott Bailey 15:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Kscottbailey's original response refactored here - my response is in my section above. Carcharoth 16:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to Nick: While I strongly disagree with Weber's behavior, and have made that opinion well-known, I would not have made the same decision with the tools that you did. However, as I do not have the tools, it's quite easy for me to do some "Monday morning quarterbacking" on the issue. I don't think your block was "bad", just not what I would have done in the same circumstance. K. Scott Bailey 16:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to GRBerry: It's not about "thoughtcrime", it's about disrupting at RfA with blanket opposition, with no rationale other than that self-noms (explicitly allowed--and even encouraged--by the RfA rules) are "prima facie evidence of power hunger." This is both bad faith and disruption. Both are against policy, and as such should be taken up by ArbCom. K. Scott Bailey 19:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to 'Crats : No one is persecuting Weber, or saying that "minority opinions" are not allowed. What we're saying is that Weber is being disruptive, albeit at a low level, by placing spurious non-votes at RfA. This is most certainly not allowed, and I would hope you would reconsider based upon a misunderstanding of what the real issue is. K. Scott Bailey 16:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to ArbCom Follow-up: Everyone "knows" that RfA is not a vote, but everyone KNOWS that it really is, even if not in the strictest definition of the term. Officially, the 'crats could promote a candidate with 50% or less of the non-vote vote. They don't do this. Officially, they could refuse to promote someone with 90% of the non-vote vote. Neither do they do this. Instead, they determine "consensus" based upon some relatively strict guidelines, that appear to be as follows: less than 70%=automatic non-promote; over 80%=automatic promote; their VERY limited discretion--which allows for the claim that RfA is not a "vote" seems to come between 70-79%. With that said, spurious "responses" (for your sake, I won't call them "votes") like Weber's game the system, causing low-level disruption, as it takes three legitimate support "notes" to outweigh Weber's spurious one in the final decision-making process. Does everyone know that RfA isn't supposed to be a vote? Definitely. Does everyone know that in many ways, it really is a vote? Just as definitely. Thus, Weber's behavior in citing spurious non-reasons for his opposes constitutes low-level disruption, and deserves this committee's attention. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 12:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Mercury

I would ask the committee to reconsider for a clarification on disruption and low level disruption. I am not asking the committee to arbitrate the actual content of the RFA view, but the reactions (plural) surrounding it. The many discussions caused by what appears to be bad faith statements. I see disruption, but with the unblock, I can not reblock. This is what I would like arbitrated. User conduct. I ask for reconsideration. With respect, Mercury 22:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by — Dorftrottel⁠

I have no particular opinion on whether a block or RfA-ban could resolve the issue or would do more good than bad or the other way around, but as far as Kmweber's self-nom opposes are concerned as the underlying issue of this request, I'd like to point out that although minority opinions are welcome anywhere on Wikipedia, Kmweber's way of commenting (i) has had no merits with regard to any RfA so far, and (ii) the tendency is that it serves as a mild disruption, unduly diverting concentration of other participants away from more important points within the process to a meta-level that should be reserved for board discussion at WT:RFA or VP. Again: Minority opinions are welcome, but —vote or !vote— RfA is not Speakers' Corner for anyone bent on changing the process from within. — Dorftrottel⁠ 13:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Important Note from Kscottbailey, Regarding Weber's Previous Self-Nom

I just discovered, via Weber's talk page, that he has actually nominated himself for adminship. The community turned down the nomination. This could very well go to a very point-y reasoning for his opposes, and bolster the case that they are disruptive. K. Scott Bailey 13:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A link to the previous self-nom. K. Scott Bailey 14:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, in case anyone misses my response above, Kurt's response to this issue being raised at the RfC is here. Carcharoth 14:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Also for the record, this was simply offered as supporting evidence that Weber could well be making a point, instead of an actual, good-faith contribution. His protestations aside, it strains credulity to believe that one could actually go from self-nomming to considering them "prima facie evidence of power hunger" (a disruptive, bad-faith position if ever there was one). K. Scott Bailey 15:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/5/0/0)

• Decline. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Accept to consider a topic ban or other editing restrictions since there is not agreement among the Community at large and administrators in particular about how to handle the situation. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Kirill 00:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. The community seems to be handling this. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Charles Matthews 16:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Accept for a quick clarification of disruptiveness. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. If no one is swayed by Kurt's actions then he's one man fighting the system. If many are then perhaps consensus is changing. In a similar case, Boothy443, the Committee did recognize this kind of RfA participation as disruption, but things had gone a good deal farther. Furthermore, the Committee did not enjoin Boothy443 from participating in RfA. Mackensen (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Follow-up. Given that RfA is not a vote, I'm not sure what a 'spurious non-vote' would be. Bureaucrats are free to exercise their discretion in determining the outcome of a discussion; they're free to strike invalid comments. Mackensen (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. Minority views are allowed. Paul August ☎ 15:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Reject per Mackensen. James F. (talk) 09:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. Place new requests at the top.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2

I've blocked DreamGuy initially for one week for abusive sock puppetry, incivility, and edit warring. I am requesting a review of his sanctions because there are additional factors that ArbCom was unaware of at the time. I recommend increasing the length of the block, and also a checkuser to confirm what appears to be an obvious case of sockpuppetry. See ANI thread and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy 2. In brief, DreamGuy appeared to be laying low during this case, but was actually editing with an IP sock puppet to avoid scrutiny. Just five days after the case closed, his sockpuppet was used for incivility and edit warring. I view this behavior as cynical manipulation that calls for stronger sanctions. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm having difficulties following Jehochman's exposition; i.e. links to more links to more links, etc. El_C 17:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys#Parties instructed

Hi - I need clarification on this instruction. My concern is that the other party has taken this instruction as a license to own articles; do I need to avoid any article he edits, and stop editing whatever articles I edit if he edits them too? As the arbitration came to a close he immediately went to one of the disputed pages and made the exact same changes that I and several other users had been protesting. Is this behavior considered reasonable, and am I expected to just ignore any page he chooses to edit? Or are his actions considered a violation of the spirit of this instruction? csloat 04:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom instruction was that we are "instructed to refrain from interacting with or commenting about each other in any way." But we might need a formal practical rule on that. So I proposed the following: "I will not edit any articles where you made any edits before me, however minor these edits might be; and you promise do the same with regard to articles I have ever edited." [48]. Is that reasonable? So far I followed exactly this rule. It is easy to see who of us edited an article first. We are both treated equally. This has nothing to do with own, since all remaining WP users are very welcome to edit any article in question. It is not possible to edit the same article without communication. Biophys 20:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not believe that is reasonable; it smacks of ownership of articles. Especially when one party to the arbitration has immediately taken the close of arbitration as a license to return to the extremely objectionable behavior of the recent past. I would like an arbitrator's view on the matter. (I would also like clarification on whether even this particular interaction violates the instruction; I don't think so but it is vague enough that it might). csloat 21:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I only said that I am not going to follow edits of another user (as ArbCom requested) and asked for the same in return. If that is not reasonable, some clarification may indeed be needed.Biophys 22:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What Biophys proposes is reasonable; neither one of you should edit an article the other is already engaged in editing. Splitting the articles formerly in conflict is somewhat arbitrary. If you guys can live with dividing them by which of you edited them first, that's fine. The alternative—which I suspect will be less to your liking—will be to restrict both of you from editing any article you've been in conflict over in the past (as was done in the WLU-Mystar case). Kirill 04:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the only articles where there was a significant problem were Communist terrorism and Operation Sarindar -- I would be ok with the solution that neither of us edits those two articles. csloat 16:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The list of articles that we edited both is much longer, including Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, Intelligence Summit, California in focus, and others. So, let's follow the official ArbCom decision as clarified by Kirill. We do not need ArbCom sanctions as in WLU-Mystar case.Biophys 17:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

RFAR/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

I've been contacted by User:Certified.Gangsta, who left the project in June 2007 in consequence of the sanctions imposed on him in the Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram RFAR. He was finding it impossible to edit under them, and was feeling very frustrated. User:Ideogram is now under a community ban, where he was found to have baited Certified.Gangsta and attempted to drive him off the project (successfully). CG is thinking about returning, and wonders if he might possibly have his editing restrictions revoked, despite the infractions he has indeed committed. Would the arbitrators like to take a look at this case, please? To remind you of how it went, I've written up a short overview of the circumstances here. Other users should feel free to add their views of the matter at that subpage, or at this notification, whichever works. Bishonen | talk 09:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC).

The Committee is discussing this matter. Kirill 13:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC).

Comment. I would not personally recommend a lifting of the restriction, since Ideogram was not the only editor that encountered his edit warring and I fail to see a pressing need in the absence of his primary antagonist. Giving such a user the extra wiggle room of two to three non-vandalism reverts seems like a poor idea for an established edit warrior. However, I would not be opposed to the editing restrictions being lifted, since the community tends to take a dim view of continued nonsense from editors with a problematic history. If CG were to relapse towards poor behaviour, I'm fairly confidant it would be handled quite quickly without kid gloves. I doubt great harm would result from allowing him the chance to participate in Wikipedia productively without editing restrictions. Additionally, the endorsement of Bishonen and Jehochman for the lifting of restrictions is a strong point in its favour. A bit of thought on both sides of the coin. *hands out grains of salt* Vassyana 00:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Disclosure: I was the blocking sysop for the most recent parole violation.

Thank you, Vassyana. Some recent developments: in his edits of today, November 10, Certified.Gangsta points (on request) to his positive contributions to the project.[49]. Please note especially his appeal here, and the new section "Contribution" on his talkpage, which he's in the process of adding to. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC).

Regarding Robert Prechter remedy

User:Newyorkbrad suggested this was the place to come for this problem.

In the RfA for Robert Prechter Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter I was banned from editing articles related to Prechter, essentially because I was putting "too much" negative information into a WP:BLP. I consider this ban a stain on my reputation. I think that subsequent events have shown that the decision was wrong, and I request that you review the ban.

In early August User:Rgfolsom quit editing Wikipedia following two major set-backs (for him not for Wikipedia). In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionomics (2nd nomination) it was again decided that Socionomics be deleted (it was supposed to be put into a tempory redirect to Prechter and is still there.) Folsom offended many editors in that debate with his attack-dog style. As the closer said:

Discussion. — This is a very unwieldy discussion, so for the sake of efficiency I am simply discounting anything written by Rgfolsom (talk · contribs), who is being paid to promote and defend Robert Prechter's concept of "socionomics" and has a conflict of interest. As volunteer editors, we are simply not playing in the same league as he.

About the same time he fought unsucessfully to have the following deleted from the Prechter article:

In July 2007, the Hulbert Financial Digest, published by Dow Jones, reported that Elliott Wave International's Elliott Wave Financial Forecast had a 15-year annualized return of negative 25.4%/year and a return of negative 17.8% over the life of the newsletter.[17]

This is well documented, and other editors would simply not put up with his demands anymore. I think this is why he quit editing - everybody could easily see his bullying tactics, and the community would not let him use them anymore.

Since I was banned for putting too much weight on negative material, I think this fact needs to be considered (the negative 25.4% annual return over 15 years). When an investment advisor has a negative 25.4% annual return duing the biggest bull market in history, I don't see how the documented quotes from major news sources that I put in the article could be considered to be overly negative.

Combined with his attack-dog style which has offended just about everybody he's dealt with, I'd like you to reconsider the ban.

Sincerely,

Smallbones 23:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I was partially involved during the mediation stage of this case. Rgfolsom was a most-disagreeable person to deal with via e-mail, and I think the restrictions on Smallbones were a bit too much. Personally, I would endorse a restoration of Smallbones' full editing rights. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Smallbones I think I understand your situation but I have two questions to be sure. Is the "negative" information stuff like: William Power (19 August 1993). "Robert Prechter sees his 3600 on the Dow--But 6 years late". The Wall Street Journal. ? While "positive" information comes mostly from him or his company? If the answers to both questions are yes, IMHO you are actually abiding by WP:NPOV and shouldn't be punished just because the sources say what they do. (Sometimes sources have more negative things to say than positive). Anynobody 08:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. All the negative information was in the form of quotes, from the most reliable business press - e.g. the Wall Street Journal, Fortune, the Financial Times, Barron's. When I put 1 of these sources in the article, Folsom reverted it, when I put 2 in he reverted, 3 ..., 4.... Maybe when I put nine in, it was a bit of overkill. The "positive" sources, if I recall correctly, were exclusively from Folsom's boss Prechter. When I started editing the article, it was a copyright violation, taken directly from Prechter's website. Smallbones 20:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That, for lack of a better word, sucks. This is exactly the type of situation I thought WP:UNDUE was meant to address. (Certainly we can mention Prechter's belief in his system, but the bulk of our article should come from sources like Wall Street Journal, Fortune, the Financial Times, Barron's.

Banning people like you from editing a topic for citing reliable sources is a big mistake and I hope the arbcom will notice this oversight. Anynobody 22:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

To prove my point, it looks like Smallbones was topic banned because his version seemed overly negative. However the "negativity" isn't a product of POV pushing on his/her part but simply what the sources say. The two versions given and their references:

Smallbones version, includes 20 references:

1. ^ William Power (19 August 1993). "Robert Prechter sees his 3600 on the Dow--But 6 years late". The Wall Street Journal: 1. 2. ^ Robert McGough (July 17, 1997). "Bears Will Be Right On Stocks Someday, Just You Watch --- So They Missed 5,000 Points, It's No Reason They Ought To Stop Prognosticating". The Wall Street Journal: 1. 3. ^ Levy, Adam (February 2003). "The Ultimate Bear". Bloomberg Markets: p. 69. 4. ^ a b c d Robert R. Prechter, Jr. (various dates). "Elliott Wave Theorist". Elliott Wave International. 5. ^ Best Sellers List (11 August 2002). "Book Review". New York Times: p. 24. 6. ^ Robert R. Prechter, Jr. (1999). The Wave Principle of Human Social Behavior and the New Science of Socionomics. Gainesville, Georgia: New Classics Library. 7. ^ Penn, David (June 2003). "Social Mood and the Markets". Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities: p. 50. 8. ^ McCaffrey Brecht, Kira (July 2003). "Trader's Hall of Fame Award - Robert Prechter - An Interview with the Elliott Wave Guru". Stocks, Futures & Options Magazine: p. 42. 9. ^ a b Robert R. Prechter, Jr. (1996/2004). Prechter's Perspective. Gainesville, Georgia: New Classics Library, p. 6. 10. ^ Lazarovic, Karen (30 April 1985). "Elliott-wave technician sees 2d-half blastoff". New York Post: p. 36. 11. ^ Shaw, Russell; Landis, David (9 Oct. 1987). "Prechter flees Wall St. for Georgia hills". http://www.usatoday.com/ USA Today]: p. B1. 12. ^ Myerson, Allen R. (October, 1985). "Robert Prechter: From Lake Lanier, He Can See Wall Street Clearly". Georgia Trend: p. 26. 13. ^ Hendrick, Bill (July 15, 1990). "Unbelievers Don't Worry Prechter". Atlanta Journal Constitution: p. H-4. 14. ^ Robert Prechter (October 20, 1987). "The Crash of '87: Bull Market Guru Predicts Further Dow Average Fall". The Wall Street Journal. 15. ^ (October 22, 1987) "Corrections & Amplifications: Robert Prechter". The Wall Street Journal. 16. ^ William Power (19 August 1993). "Robert Prechter sees his 3600 on the Dow--But 6 years late". The Wall Street Journal: 1. 17. ^ Constance Mitchell (December 27, 1988). "Doomsayers Now Are Salient Among Market Bears". The Wall Street Journal. 18. ^ 'Elliott Wave' Forecaster Ends Public Appearances, The Wall Street Journal, March 10, 1989 19. ^ Geoffrey Colvin (16 October 2000). "The Wheelers, the Wavers, and the Star-Struck". Fortune: p. 84. 20. ^ Jonathan R. Laing (26 October 1998). "Ride that Wave! Is Bob Prechter's long-forecast economic and market collapse finally at hand?". Barron's. Template:Multicol-break The "balanced version" excludes citations from some Wall Street Journal articles, leaving 15 references. How can that be called balanced?

1. ^ Best Sellers List (11 August 2002). "Book Review". New York Times: p. 24. 2. ^ Levy, Adam (February 2003). "The Ultimate Bear". Bloomberg Markets: p. 69. 3. ^ a b c d Robert R. Prechter, Jr. (various dates). "Elliott Wave Theorist". Elliott Wave International. 4. ^ Robert R. Prechter, Jr. (1999). The Wave Principle of Human Social Behavior and the New Science of Socionomics. Gainesville, Georgia: New Classics Library. 5. ^ Penn, David (June 2003). "Social Mood and the Markets". Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities: p. 50. 6. ^ McCaffrey Brecht, Kira (July 2003). "Trader's Hall of Fame Award - Robert Prechter - An Interview with the Elliott Wave Guru". Stocks, Futures & Options Magazine: p. 42. 7. ^ a b Robert R. Prechter, Jr. (1996/2004). Prechter's Perspective. Gainesville, Georgia: New Classics Library, p. 6. 8. ^ Lazarovic, Karen (30 April 1985). "Elliott-wave technician sees 2d-half blastoff". New York Post: p. 36. 9. ^ Shaw, Russell; Landis, David (9 Oct. 1987). "Prechter flees Wall St. for Georgia hills". USA Today: p. B1. 10. ^ Myerson, Allen R. (October, 1985). "Robert Prechter: From Lake Lanier, He Can See Wall Street Clearly". Georgia Trend: p. 26. 11. ^ Hendrick, Bill (July 15, 1990). "Unbelievers Don't Worry Prechter". Atlanta Journal Constitution: p. H-4. 12. ^ Hulbert, Mark (4 October 1998). "Is the Time Right for Market Timing?". New York Times: p. C-7. 13. ^ Brimelow, Peter. Is Prechter's bearishness permanent?. Retrieved on 2006-12-4. 14. ^ Geoffrey Colvin (16 October 2000). "The Wheelers, the Wavers, and the Star-Struck". [Fortune (magazine): p. 84. 15. ^ William Power (19 August 1993). "Robert Prechter sees his 3600 on the Dow--But 6 years late". The Wall Street Journal. Template:Multicol-end

Anynobody 02:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the 2 above editors for their support. Just to be clear, I'm not asking for the case to be be re-arbitrated (even though I disagree with the decision, and think that, in retrospect it should be clear to the arbitrators that the decision was wrong). All I am asking for is that the indefinite ban on me editing articles related to Robert Prechter should be lifted, because a) it's been 7 months and b) nobody seems to have any major disagreement anymore with the edits I made on the Prechter article. And please do remember, Prechter's advice costs his clients 25% of their investment every year (as measured by Hulbert Financial Digest). Do you really want Folsom/Prechter or that type of editor putting his adverts on Wikipedia again? Smallbones 02:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The Committee may find it useful to know that I have contacted ^demon by email about the above comment of his. I asked him why he characterized me as being "most-disagreeable" during the Socionomics mediation, but he has not replied. I am bewildered by what ^demon has said now, because my messages to him were civil and respectful; he even offered his help to me in filing the request I brought to this Committee (help which I accepted and found useful indeed). I do not know why ^demon has done this, but I can show that he is plainly mistaken in what he claims. I kept my entire email exchange with ^demon, and I am willing to make all those messages available to him and to the Committee for the asking. If necessary, I will provide Committee members with my gmail user name and password so that they can access my gmail account to verify the content of those emails, including the dates and time stamps.

As for Smallbones' request, I will only note that what he says now is more of what he said then to the Committee during the Arb case. This will be obvious enough to any Committee member who reviews the evidence, workshop, and unanimous vote from that case. Thank you.

--Rgfolsom 18:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)