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

Billy Ego unblocking appeal

Initiated by Celtcrym36 (talk) at 09:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Celtcrym36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Billy Ego (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Discussion with Billy Ego via e-mail.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The dispute resolution took place off this site.

Statement by User:Celtcrym36

I have had a long discussion with Billy Ego (talk · contribs · email) over e-mail since September about his return to Wikipedia. He says he will stop the sockpuppetry, and vandalism and act within Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.

Mr. Ego has stated a desire to edit legitimately if he is allowed back. One such article he intends to edit is Heroes (TV series) and also Hilda Toledano as well.

Please consider this case.

Clerk notes

Normally appeals on behalf of banned users should be presented via e-mail to the Arbitration Committee mailing list rather than on-wiki, except with permission of an arbitrator. Given that an arbitrator has already voted, I will not remove the request at this stage, but any arbitrator may do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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

• Reject. The sockpuppetry was only one of the reasons for the original ban; I see nothing here that convinces me he'll not be disruptive even with a single account. Kirill 14:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. Paul August ☎ 18:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Privatemusings

Initiated by Privatemusings (talk) at 03:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (filing party)
• Mercury (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (blocking administrator)
• Fred Bauder (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I have notified Mercury and placed a notice at the end of the relevant AN discussion. I have also notified JzG and David Gerard that they are mentioned in this request for arbitration, though I have not formally added them as parties. Fred Bauder has added himself as a party so he is aware. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Per the below, one of my concerns is the fact that they really haven't been, yet an indef. block stands. Privatemusings (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Privatemusings

I have found it hard to draft a clear statement because I still find it hard to understand what specific activity has been alleged. In general terms, I understand that many people have found me to be a useless disruptive troll. This is wrong in every sense. I have been a good faith user for a long-ish time, and wish to be unblocked.

I'm unsure as to cultural norms on this point, but would presume that certainly Fred, and I would hope Jpgordon, and Morven who have all issued judgments in this matter would recuse themselves from this process.

The following represent the administrative discussion I am aware of on this matter to date, latest first;

• The current AN thread following Mercury's indefinite block (18 Nov -)
• The previous discussion following David Gerard's indefinite block (15 - 16 Nov)
• A previous discussion on AN instigated by JzG (7 - 11 Nov)
• Discussion on AN/I following JzG's indefinite block (31 Oct - 3 Nov)

A very vague estimate would be 20 editors coming out clearly in favour of an indef. block, and perhaps 17 or so suggesting alternate options, or outright opposing. The statement that it has consensus is certainly not clear cut, nor in my opinion accurate.

My assertions

• I was blocked without any prior discussion from the blocking admin
• The block reason was half inaccurate, and half confusing

• I made a strong, public commitment to editing using only this account significantly prior to this block.
• The discussion of WP:RS seemed to me to be productive.

• This, my third indefinite block in quick succession, immediately overturned a consensus formed on AN/I
• At no stage have any diff.s been provided that warrant an indefinite block
• The sole diffs provided to date (with thanks to Durova) - [1][2][3] are not disruptive, and are no grounds for a block.
• This is a very unpleasant, avoidable experience, and I feel bullied, and feel that some editors have acted inappropriately.
• This block is punitive
• I should be unblocked

Further assertions, unrelated to this block, but regarding my editing in general

• JzG has acted unethically in sharing privately submitted personal information when expressly asked not to
• David Gerard has acted irresponsibly in publishing that information on the wiki
• The discussion of references to usually reliable sources has been problematic at Talk:Giovanni di Stefano
• My contributions to that discussion have been in good faith, and intended to progress the article work
• Mention of specific sources is disallowed, and surprise at this practice, and the desire to discuss it, is fundamentally what has landed me in hot water.

Please please please treat me with respect and courtesy during this process, which I hope is how I have behaved throughout.

Thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Mercury

I have indefinitely blocked PM for using this alternate account not in line with our "Good hand, bad hand" accounts, and I did not find it to be a legitimate use of alternate accounts. This part of the sock policy referencing good hand bad hand accounts would appear to preclude usage of an alternate account for the purposes of disruption on on site drama. That is to say, the abandonment of a previous good account, in favor of using this account soly for disruption, does not legitimize its use.

In addition to this, I've found PM to be causing disruption around a highly sensitive biography of living persons article where he had been warned already. Reliable sourcing in these areas are non negotiable. This in connection with past disruption has already caused a net loss to the project. I have indef blocked the account to prevent disruption. I have since unblocked the account to allow PM to post this request.

There is no consensus for unblocking at the moment. I would ask the committee to reject this case as already handled, and in that case, I will reapply the block. However, if it takes arbitration to show abusive editors to the door, then I urge the committee to accept.

Statement by Fred Bauder

My involvement comes from my attempts to deal with the problems presented by Giovanni di Stefano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Privatemusing's repeated creations of versions of this article, both in his own user space and in the article itself, including links on the talk page to his versions, has led, in my opinion, to the need to delete the article and its talk page with their histories in order to conform to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. There are many outstanding questions regarding what should be in this article. I am not at all sure that my approach is correct, but Privatemusing actions have been distinctly unhelpful over an extended period of time. Fred Bauder (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Guy

Privatemusings is the third account of this user to make significant edits, other accounts also exist. The account privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was originally registered to engage in contentious policy debate to separate that form the main account, Purples (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). No credible reason has ever been advanced why this user would need to use a separate account, since the (then) main account was also used in contentious areas and did not in any case have a reputation that would be damaged by participation. A significant number of people expressed the view that this is not a valid use of an alternate account.

Under all the various usernames, Privatemusings has shown consistent interest in drama. Edits to Essjay controversy and AACS enryption key controversy both focus on Wikipedia drama taken to mainspace.

The various accounts edit overlapping subject areas. For example, Purples edited Jonathan King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Privatemusings edited Giovanni di Stefano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), King's lawyer. See [4] for one of Purples' edits to Jonathan King.

Giovanni di Stefano is a highly sensitive article. Privatemusings made highly insensitive edits to this article.

Statement by WAS 4.250

I think this boils down to the fact that for a single edit-able space, it is necessary for the contributors to act as if the opinions of others matters. If you do not act like that, then you have to be shown the door. I tried with both Jon Awbrey and Privatemusing to convince them to act like other opinions mattered and in both cases, I believe the response was to insist that their right-ness mattered more. It is unworkable to allow people to edit a single edit-able space who do not act as if the opinions of others matters enough to cause them to self-restrain their own edits.WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Privatemusings&oldid=172419903

Statement by Alecmconroy

As I've said at ANI-- there are a few things I in PM's defense, but those few things aren't sufficient to convince anyone that PM doesn't still need some help in learning to comply with Wikipedia Guidelines.

In PM's defense:

• I don't think he's ever bad-faith abused sock puppets. When he created the PM account, he immediately identified it as a sockpuppet. He was quick to share his other accounts with any admin who asked. This is not the behavior of an abusive sock-puppeteer, it's the behavior of someone trying to comply with our rules as he understood them. Perhaps he didn't succeed and he crossed a line, but it does look to me like he tried very hard to comply.

But, that said-- I can't in good conscious call the block to be overturned. This pushing too hard on the BLP issue, the incivility to Durova, assumption of bad faith, being a tad too aggressive at the Giovanni article, when great sensitivity was required. The blocking admin doesn't seem to have any conceivable ax to grind whatsoever, and although I do think PM was generally acting in good faith, he seemed to have stumbled across a few too many lines in too short a period.

The best I can say is that-- I do think PM is a basically good-faith editor who's doesn't seem like he's trying to break strict guidelines, but sometimes has trouble with gray ones. Trying blocks shorter than three months/indef might bring substantial results-- if you gave him a week to think it over and then let him come back with a promise to stay away from BLPs, you might yet be able to salvage him. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Doc

Enough. This case is unnecessary and should be summarily dismissed.

It is time we stopped protecting people with process and form-filling. The community should know what to do: zero tolerance for anyone mucking about with BLPs. That we protect the subjects of such articles, and indeed good sensitive editors who painstakingly work on them, is more important than that we protect disruptive editors who are here to push agendas, or, as here, simply enjoy wikidrama. In such cases, after due warning from uninvolved parties, an administrator should simply issue an indefinite block. Goodnight.--Doc^g 08:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Sam Blacketer

I've been an uninvolved observer of this situation, but I think the Arbitration committee should hear it to determine two issues. Firstly, was it acceptable for Privatemusings to be blocked for sockpuppetry on 18 November after a block for the same reason was overturned on 16 November, absent any evidence that he had engaged in sockpuppetry on the two days he was unblocked? Secondly, is Privatemusings' attraction to highly controversial situations a deliberate attempt to cause drama and trouble, for example by provoking bold actions by administrators that are subsequently reversed? (That has, after all, been the effect). Useful answers could be rendered on those two issues which would be helpful in other cases. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Relata Refero

1. If PM was blocked for violation of WP:SOCK after he agreed to abide by a more restrictive interpretation of GHBH - and one that is very far from achieving consensus - than was in operation at the time of his creating alternate accounts, than that is patently absurd.
2. If PM was blocked for "aggressively editing" an article even when he "freely admitted he know little or nothing of the basis for the disputes", than that's a somewhat original reason to support a block.
3. If PM was blocked for discussing on an article talkpage what precise reasons we have for excluding apparently reliable sources - "Someone such as Privatemusing, who does not have reliable judgment regarding this particular matter should not be editing the article or commenting on it" - it implies that we are now restricting the editing of certain articles to experts; there has been no claim made that PM has either a COI or a particular POV concerning the subject of this article, about whom he is as well-informed as the rest of us. Naturally, if this is an WP:OFFICE matter, than the normal privileges do not apply. However, this article is not listed on the WP:OFFICE page as being under scrutiny.
4. Have we become, as suggested by someone on the Administrator's Noticeboard, a place so finished/mature/stodgy that we are in danger of confusing an idealistic devotion to fixing things with a disruptive tendency to create trouble? Is PM incapable of improving the encylopaedia, and is, in fact, his effort completely disruptive, or is he merely an annoyance because he insists, politely, things be explained? Or is he, as some of us seem to think, playing a complex game to confuse us into biting our own tails? (I suspect this last point is why most people are interested, though I find it less compelling or interesting than the first three.)
5. I enjoy a bit of constructive anarchy as much as the next man, but the point of "process and form-filling" is to protect those without power from the occasional ineptitude of those with power. If this is one of those cases, I'm all for "process and form-filling".

Given these facts, I would be surprised if ArbCom did not choose to take this up. Relata refero (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Note to David Gerard: If PM seemed to think that he had a right to have multiple accounts and to not reveal publicly the links between his accounts, as long as he did not use those accounts to game consensus or evade scrutiny, that is because that was specifically considered legitimate in WP:SOCK, and still appears to be the consensus version of that policy, if with one or two minor changes to attempt to reduce wikidrama. I don't see why anyone is particularly outraged by that, and not by the first three of the points I make above. It seems more than obvious which of the two situations is problematic for the project. Relata refero (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Kendrick7

I concur with the statement by User:Relata refero. The thread which runs through this editor's so-called "disruption" is not a belief in creating drama, but a belief in adhering to one of our guiding principles, that Wikipedia is not censored. This is a belief I strongly share; I also edited at the two articles User:JzG mentions, Essjay controversy and AACS encryption key controversy, when those were current events, and I am certain via a slightly different random walk I'd be exactly where Privatemusings is now; I am tempted even to carry his cross.

Accusations of "disruption" have been made, and I have repeatedly requested diffs[5] [6] which might show this disruption exists, and they have not been forthcoming. Is the word "disruption" merely a cipher that can be trotted out to justify blocks without evidence? Privatemusings is disruptive only in the way Caesar was ambitious: he's some vague threat to the community which just had to be taken care of, don't worry your pretty little plebeian heads about it.

Privatemusings has worked tirelessly for months to help craft a policy for when links containing external harassment, so-called WP:PROBLEMLINKS, are appropriate in our encyclopedia. The creation of such policy was called for by you, the WP:Arbitration Committee, in a recent case. Of course, when he then went forth and tried to apply the principles the community has tried to develop there to actual articles, he was quickly labeled a troll. The lack of "consensus" to lift this block seems in part due to all the bad blood left over from the attack sites ArbCom being poured upon this editor's head. Furthermore, Privatemusing made clear at WT:PROBLEMLINKS that he created this account to avoid this bad blood staining his other account, and despite JzG's statement that No credible reason has ever been advanced why this user would need to use a separate account, the timing of this block, mere hours after he agreed to give up using any other account, seems to suggest the wisdom of his original course of action.

To pretend that his verifiable, sourced edits to the biography of a certain lawyer violated WP:BLP is absurd. We are an encyclopedia, and our readers rely on us to provide reliably sourced, verifiable information. If we need to create a WP:Biography of living lawyers policy so that our readers and editors may be aware that the articles of lawyers are some special exception to our normal rules, so be it, but the community should not be punishing Privatemusings under such a non-existent policy by standing WP:BLP on its head. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:28, 20 November 2007

Statement by David Gerard

Privatemusings feels his private information, and his name, was revealed. This appears to be because he was sockpuppeting furiously and one of the sockpuppets had a variant on what he claims is his real name. I'm frankly baffled someone could do this and then blame others when the link between the accounts is revealed. Not to mention that he'd promised to keep to one account and then started using others. What baffles me further is that he sincerely believes running multiple accounts, and lying about them, is behaviour he has a right to on Wikipedia. Somehow all this was done in good faith, of some sort. Good luck sorting it out - David Gerard (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I should add: I was only concerned with the use of multiple accounts for drama. I have not looked into PM's editing career itself. I have no problem with PM having only one account and sticking to it - but the edits will I expect be a matter for the AC to consider - David Gerard (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Jreferee

(I recognized that my statement is after the decision to accept the matter.) My interactions with Privatemusings are recent and came on the talk page for Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. My impression is that Privatemusings flies in the gray area between sock puppet and appropriate alternate account, seemingly to test policy boundaries to see how others respond (as opposed to the purpose of improving policy). Privatemusings seems to seek out interactions with the more experienced Wikipedians, the effect of which captures their time away from other matters. The actions taken against Privatemusings may have been too heavy handed, but non action would seem to be too light of hand. I revised Wikipedia:Sock puppetry about a week ago per talk page discussion to include Identification and handling of inappropriate alternate accounts in hopes of addressing such situations. In response, Privatemusings posted these questions and I posted these answers and this answer. I do not think admins and others have been effective at dealing with the many questions raised around Privatemusings actions and ArbCom review of the situation would be most welcome. -- Jreferee t/c 22:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Four votes noted to accept and open the case. Case to open tomorrow (Wednesday) absent further developments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/1/0)

• Recused as a party Fred Bauder (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Kirill 14:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Paul August ☎ 18:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

---

MONGO 2

Initiated by Viridae^Talk at 03:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• MONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Viridae (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Dtobias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alecmconroy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Amarkov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Krimpet (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Tom harrison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Crum375 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Spryde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thomas Basboll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• MONGO: [7]
• Dtobias: [8]
• GTBacchus: [9]
• Alecmconroy: [10]
• Amarkov [11]
• SchmuckyTheCat [12]
• Krimpet [13]
• Tom harrison [14]
• Crum375 [15]
• Spryde [16]
• Thomas Basboll [17]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 2
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 3
• [18]
• WT:NPA

Statement by Viridae

Personal attacks

There has been recent disputes at WP:NPA over whether a section on external links is appropriate or necessary. There are people who are passionately arguing both sides, which I believe (despite accusations otherwise by commenters on the RfC) to be a good thing. However what is not good is the massive amount of personal attacks from MONGO, largely dismissing people’s opinions because they are either members of either The Wikipedia Review or Enclopedia Dramatica. MONGO has a history of this kind of behaviour. Approximately a year ago MONGO was desysopped by arbcom. As part of their findings of the arbcom stated “In many instances he has reacted inappropriately to such harassment and events, freely characterizing opponents in a derogatory manner…” This behaviour continues to this day. He has disparaged his opponents for perceived biases:

• “the only dispute is by those who contribute to WR” [19]
• "revert, known ED contributor" [20]
• "rv another ED contributor..." [21]
• “so it certainly is a disgusting COI when partiticipants in those websites try and argue against not being able to link to them” [22]
• “OH...hahahahaha! I don't participant in a website that is a capricious pile of shit like WR...you do! Yet you oppose banning links to it...okay...well, shucks golly gee...surely that's not a COI...surely.” [23]

This is despite WP:NPA stating “Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views [is never acceptable] -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.” and “Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.”

After all this, Alec started an RfC in an attempt to resolve the situation (linked above) which MONGO has refused to participate in, stating “I won't be party to your Rfc...I see it as blatant harassmen". In addition to MONGOs rejection of appropriate dispute resolution, those people that certified the RfC were accused of: being vindictive (Guy), harassing him (Guy, Crum375 three times, DHeyward, Slim Virgin), using the dispute resolution process to gain leverage in the NPA dispute (Addhoc), baiting him (rogerd), using the RfC to create drama (DHeyward). There is no alternative but arbitration, all avenues have been exhausted. MONGO has a history of uncivil behaviour that is well known on the project, and is constantly being enabled by others who are often equally uncivil. I do not wish to see MONGO banned as part of this arbcom, I simply want to be able to discuss the NPA policies in an adult manner without being constantly attacked.

Related edit warring

After a massive amount of edit warring (eleven reverts over four days) including 3 sets of three reverts on three different days by MONGO as part of a massive 27 reverts (if I have counted correctly) from the 17th of October when the policy page was unprotected to the 22nd of October when I re-protected and including one 24 hours period of protection. This means that over a third of those reverts were performed by MONGO.

This part of the dispute can be detailed if necessary, or sent to a member of Arbcom if they would prefer.

Please note that this abr request has been limited to the very recent behaviour surrounding one issue. If the arbitrators felt it to be more appropriate it could be expanded to cover all the incivility and personal attacks since the last arbitration case, for which he has been constantly taken to task with no visible change in behaviour (as evinced by the most recent bout). Viridae^Talk 03:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by GTBacchus

I would prefer not to be a party to this request. I have no dispute with MONGO, and I think things are working out (albeit very slowly) over at WT:NPA. I thank Viridae for his good-faith efforts, and I may have comments along the way, should the arbitration be accepted, but I don't see any reason for me to be a named party.

As far as the complaint in this case, it's entirely related to one content dispute over at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I think we can work out the content dispute without the need for arbitration, if there's enough will to do that, and if we can put aside all of the name-calling and accusations of bad-faith. I guess whether or not ArbCom should take the case depends on the size of those two ifs. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Addendum from GTBacchus

I notice the assertion being made below that people who contribute to certain websites are "trying to weaken our external links policy", or that people are "working to allow external links to certain sites". As far as I can tell, that's false. Under the "weakest" version of the policy being considered, linking to harassment is still unacceptable and easy to deal with. Under the "strongest" version of the policy being considered, it will still be true that ad hominem arguments will be bad ideas that tend to increase drama. Whenever I've pointed out that we can still block people under the "weak" policy, or that abusive purges will still be disruption under the "strong" policy, I've either been ignored, or told that people will wikilawyer (as if that's going to be prevented by a cleverly worded policy). The fact that we don't have to put up with wikilawyering is of course ignored.

It's not a policy problem, but a behavior problem, and thus those seeking a policy solution from either side are taking a misguided approach.

I'd just as soon stay out, but if I have to be a party to this case to insure that these points aren't missed, then so be it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Alecmconroy

To add to what has been said above:

This cases is NOT about a policy dispute. The policy dispute over BADSITES is being resolved through the normal consensus building process, and there have been major strides in that direction. Arbcom is not being asked to settle the policy dispute-- the community is working on it, and will continue to. Though I don't know what the finished product will look like, I have confidence the community will be able to reach a consensus any content/policy disputes are under discussion. Indeed, two weeks ago, it had APPEARED we had reached consensus-- so clearly, the policy dispute resolution is coming along fine.

This case IS about a specific pattern of behavior by a singe user, MONGO, which is longstanding, disruptive, and frankly, deeply upsetting. MONGO has a documented history of engaging in disruptive and incivil behavior. This is a pattern has has, regrettably, continued.

Mongo continues to engage in disruptive editing. He repeatedly (19 times!) reinserted his own controversial views into Wikipedia Policy pages, without achieving any consensus for them. He continues to sling personal insults, making a habit of "commenting on the contributor, rather than the content" and attempting to "use others' affiliations (often imagined affiliations) to discredit ideas". With me personally, he continue to falsely imply or suggest that I have some connection to the website "Encyclopedia Dramatica", despite my frequent insistence that, outside of the Wikipedia policy dispute, I have no connection to the site whatsoever. I do not support the site, I do not approve of the site, I do not edit the site, and except in my capacity of a Wikipedia editor, I have never even READ the site.

I've tried everything I can think of to bring his behavior to a stop, nothing has worked.

• We've discussed MONGO's behavior extensively, in multiple different forums.
• I've personally, sincerely, and repeatedly apologized to him for any times that I've inadvertently upset him, hoping what would solve the problem of MONGO's behavior.
• I intentionally did not present any evidence about MONGO's behavior problems in the Attack Sites Case, hoping that after clarification from Arbcom, MONGO'S problematic behavior would cease.
• I wrote an essay urging the cessation of personal attacks in the policy dispute, hoping that would end the problem of MONGO's behavior.
• Along with others, I filed an RFC on MONGO's behavior in the hopes that that would settle the issue. Regrettably, most of the responses seemed to agree that the RFC was unlikely to solve the situation and that this should go forward to ArbCom.

I know we all loathe yet another case related to this matter, but I don't know what else to do. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Addendum

For those who oppose Arbcom taking the case now, let me ask: when SHOULD we come back with a case?

Mongo has, without consensus and usually without discussion, readded his proposal to the policy page NINETEEN times, over SIX months: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]

No matter what anyone thinks of the merits of his proposal, we all agree that policies pages should only contain text that already has achieved consensus. Nineteen attempts to circumvent consensus, combined with rampant incivility, is a problem.

I think it's a problem that needs to be stopped immediately. But a couple people, who I truly do respect, suggest it's not yet a problem that Arbcom needs to solve.

So I'd ask this: If nineteen controversial reinsertions-into-policy without consensus isn't a problem Arbcom should look into, tell me just how many reinsertions MONGO should get before it does becomes such a problem, so I'll know when to come back. 20 reverts? 25 reverts? 30? 40? 50?

On the personal attacks-- Mongo is frequently incivil. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least SIX different long-term editors who MONGO has personally attacked: GTBACCHUS, Gentgee, Luna Santin, Me, DanT, and Viridae. I'm sure there are many more. Now if attacking six different editors isn't enough to constitute a problem worth Arbcom looking into, tell me just how users MONGO can personally attack before it IS a problem worth Arbcom looking into, such that I'll know when to come back. 10 users attacked? 15 users attacked? 20? 30?

I'm not trying to cause trouble, I swear. We all wish we could just not deal with the situation and hope it would get better. But this incivility and disruption has been going on for, I'm told, nearly two years, and we have to face it sooner or later. Today's as good a day as any.--Alecmconroy (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Addendum 2

I'm deeply confused by the belief, uttered people who know far more than I do, that avoiding this case will result in less drama. I firmly believe MONGO's problems are far beyond any one specific policy dispute. If the NPA policy debate were to reach consensus today, tommorow, or two weeks ago--- would that really be the end of MONGO's incivility towards others? (me included)

If you really think dodging for a time will resolve the situation, that's okay-- ya'll should know best. But speaking for myself, I don't understand the logic. Dodging the case now is just putting off the inevitable. Until we, as a community, succeed in communicating some firm boundaries to MONGO, I believe his behavior will continue unabated.

Looking at this situation in the LONG term-- if we want decrease drama, we should deal with underlying disease (incivility & personal attacks) , rather than fixating on particular symptom of that disease (NPA dispute).

As the old saying goes-- it's easier to put on slippers than to carpet the whole world. There will never be any shortage of people who MONGO finds himself in conflict with. His pattern began long before the NPA dispute ever occured, and unless we can find a way to communicate with him, I'm suspect his incivility will continue long after the NPA dispute is over. --Alecmconroy (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And in fairness-- if I am the problem, that argument still holds. If I really am SO completely off-base that I'm the one causing all the problems but am just too blind to see it-- well, if that reallly were the case, ya'll might as well deal with me sooner rather than later. --Alecmconroy (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Addendum 3

Mongo has now added Spryde, Thomas Basboll, and admin Krimpet as parties in this dispute. None of these parties have ever edits NPA. (Although Krimpet has protected NPA). This should be a strong single that this dispute goes way beyond a mere NPA policy dispute, but instead involves a longstanding pattern of disruptive and incivil behavior. --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tom Harrison

I don't see the need for this. With progress being made now on the talk page, this is more likely to stir things up again. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If the committee does accept this, I hope they consider the behavior of everyone involved, including conflict of interest and the use of admin tools. I rely on anyone unable to do that to recuse himself. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Amarkov

We need a ruling on this. Ignore anyone who tells you that it's been resolved elsewhere. It hasn't, and it never will be. -Amarkov moo! 05:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Newyorkbrad

I would certainly like to see an immediate and substantial de-escalation of rhetoric by several editors involved in the attack-page links/NPA controversy, which has received, by this point, a completely disproportionate amount of attention. Unless I am missing something, though, there seems to be a de facto consensus as to how most of these links are being handled in practice at the moment, while discussion of wording of formal policy language continues. While I respect the good faith of the filing party, I don't see opening another arbitration case at this stage as likely to assist with any aspect of the problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to Dorftrotel, I will point out that if the case is accepted, the selection of a casename by the case clerk (which wouldn't be me) is just a shorthand identification for the case and does not limit the scope of the Arbitration Committee's review. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by SchmuckyTheCat

This is not about content (in the form of the NPA policy) it is about user behavior. Unfortunately, because multiple other admins are very vocal in their support of this user, no other admins are willing to address the behavior.

The only thing Arbcom needs to do is make a clear, and enforceable, statement that MONGO will be held to the same standard as every other Wikipedia editor. The "special rules for MONGO" have been well known for at least two years now. Time to end it.

There are two bad behaviors here:

1. Incivility and personal attacks by MONGO. That MONGO has been incivil and makes personal attacks has been the basis of previous Arbcom cases; has been a side issue in other Arbcom cases; and has been the issue in several rejected cases. MONGO continues to be incivil and make personal attacks. Blocks on MONGO based on his behavior have been the basis of wheel warring by admins. Contrary to discussion on the failed RfC, MONGO has not been baited or provoked (which does not excuse it anyway).
2. Edit warring, lack of discussion and ignorance of consensus by MONGO. MONGO's edit warring on the NPA page has gotten it protected multiple times. He has clearly gamed 3RR in his revert warring. He made a voluntary commitment to 1RR then broke it at the next opportunity. When discussion on the page turned towards a consensus to a minimal statement MONGO made no objection. MONGO then inserted a much longer statement against the emerged consensus without any discussion - and of course edit warred to keep it. I'm sure other editors could provide evidence (and may already have) of this behavior.

The first is an indisputable part of the Arbcom records. The second doesn't seem to be disputed either, when it is brought up his supporters simply talk past it and/or blame the other parties. But how many different parties have attempted ANI discussion, or RfC, or RFAR with MONGO? It's ALWAYS the other party.

Rebuttal of Tom Harrison

First, this is not about content, it is about user behavior. What actually happens on that policy page is an entire side issue. Second, any progress being made on the talk page is for appearances only, as we have seen multiple times. The NPA policy page gets protected by edit warring. The talk page becomes active and the BADSITES crowd says they can work together. The page gets unprotected. Everyone else says "we think this minimal statement provides all we need" and nobody disagrees. The BADSITES crowd stops talking. A week later MONGO places an entire new section into the policy without any previous discussion. The BADSITES crowd revert wars to maintain it with no talk page discussion. The page is re-protected. This cycle has now occurred multiple times and there is no evidence the cycle will not continue if the bad behavior of edit warring and ignorance of previous discussion is allowed to continue.

Comment to Newyorkbrad

This arbcom filing is unlikely to assist with any aspect of the problem if the problem is seen as the NPA policy page revert war. That is not the problem, the problem is MONGO's continued incivility and insults to other users, and edit warring and lack of discussion for his version of content. Arbcom would do well to ignore the battleground where this is occurring and focus on the behavior of those involved. The actual content can resolve itself when bad behavior is addressed.

SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Statement by Dorftrottel

Let me just say that if this case is accepted, I hope the focus will include the actions of all involved users. That's why I also think the title of this request is a bit unfortunate, to say the least. |dorftrottel |humor me 18:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

I am hoping that the arbitration committee will indeed examine all parties. I am considering adding one or two more names to this case in the next 24 hours. As far as some other comments here...yes, I do think we are nearing a more adequate wording on the NPA policy in the wording primarily regarding external links, and no, I'm not engaged in any subterfuge in conversations there. I have made it clear that I do not believe that a few websites need to be linked to, but have stated that I also understand that the prolinks or WP:LINKLOVE crowd will not permit that to be acceptable in wording. I understand some, such as Alecmconroy, have long argued, for over a year now that we should link to almost everything, and I can understand his reasoning for that, but I don't agree with it and have stated this plainly. A few days ago, I added a new wording to the NPA page that didn't mention anything about websites...it mentioned only links to harassment...I then posted a short comment on the NPA talkpage and have been engaged (as I have been for some time, though not everyday) in ongoing discussions there. I then did one revert back to my version after I was reverted...so no, I did not violate my self imposed 1RR restriction on that page. I also want to state that some, but certainly not all WP:LINKLOVE advocates are participants in websites that have been known to engage in less than useful critique of our contributors. I see this as a COI when they then make arguments in favor of linking. Others have stated that they feel I may be overreactionary due to my previous (and ongoing, mind you) harassment by one website in particular and/or previously banned editors...and that I also have a COI whenever I discuss such matters...maybe this is the case, I do not know...I do try to remain clear headed as much as possible on this matter, though it may not always appear that way. My primary purpose on this website is to write and enhance our articles and I have proven that numerous times. I do get involved in several other issues as they arise, but there are generally peripheral to my main focus. I have been called on to help work on difficult areas and those areas do have a tendency to draw out the worst in all of us.--MONGO (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

There are, in my view, several parts to this dispute.

• The continued pursuit of MONGO by a small group of detractors.
• The constant rehashing of BADSITES, even where the proposal in play is clearly a compromise and not a hard-line anti link position
• An element of "We disagree with this editor but he won't shut up"
• A failure of some presumably well-intentioned people to understand the real effects of harassment (see Dan's "rutabaga" comment in the attack sites arbitration)
• A goodly dollop of trolling from single-purpose accounts and sockpuppets of sundry undesirables
• The continued pursuit of MONGO by a small group of detractors.

Especially the first and the last. I'd say that the anti-BADSITES people have developed a siege mentality and are having difficulty breaking out of it. Not too surprising.

It's not unreasonable to describe Miltopia as an ED contributor - he was. He's also banned for disruption, in case we all forgot. The fact that he was so adept at pushing MONGO's buttons was a good part of that. Perhaps if people stopped pushing MONGO's buttons, life might be a little quieter?

Nineteen edits over six months? Slightly below one a week? Not exactly a fast burning edit war, and the edits are not all the same. I'd say that with a bit more patience a consensus will be reached, but I am an optimist. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Bigtimepeace

I have had nothing to do with the WP:NPA debate, the BADSITES debate, ED, or Wikipedia Review. I have had past experience with MONGO and observed some of the editing patterns outlined by other users above. As I have argued before, MONGO has made very large contributions to this project which should not be forgotten or ignored. There are, however, also severe problems with his behavior that come up repeatedly in forum after forum (ArbCom, RFC's, AN/I) and are pointed out by a significant number of editors in good standing. The issue is not, as JzG argues rather cheekily, the "continued pursuit of MONGO by a small group of detractors" anymore than it is the "continued defense of MONGO by a mid-sized group of supporters" (likewise while I agree it would be nice if fewer people pushed MONGO's buttons, it would also be nice if MONGO had fewer buttons to push). The issue is MONGO's persistent incivility--something which, I think, very few people deny. That incivility is sometimes directed at users who are admittedly quite problematic and sometimes directed at perfectly legitimate users with whom he disagrees. Whatever the cause and whoever is on the receiving end, his behavior is a significant distraction from writing the encyclopedia and a clear violation of a core policy which applies to all users regardless of the extent and value of their past contributions (both of which are, again, very significant in MONGO's case).

In an unrelated ArbCom case which closed exactly one month ago, evidence was presented which seemed to clearly demonstrate a problematic pattern of incivility on MONGO's part. Perhaps because it was deemed tangential to the central question of whether or not another user was violating a ban (or because the evidence was presented by said user, who was indeed violating a ban), the committee chose not to directly address the issue of MONGO's behavior, which is the only reason I bring it up here. Unsurprisingly, the problem has come up once more in a completely different part of the encyclopedia involving completely different users. I would hope that the committee deals with the issue now, lest it crop up yet again in one, two, or six months.

Because I'm familiar with it I have confined my comment to MONGO's behavior, but of course it goes without saying that the behavior of other editors in this dispute may well warrant equal scrutiny--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

I do not endorse brusque behavior by any editor. That said, Viridae's request for arbitration largely hinges on a questionable interpretation of WP:NPA. Surely that policy is not intended as a cudgel to silence legitimate WP:COI concerns. There is a commonsense problem when editors from two websites that host blatant insults of Wikipedians engage in a long term campaign to weaken Wikipedia's external linking policy, then utilize their preferred policy version to link to insulting material of little or no encyclopedic value. Although the principle of free expression gained some broader support during the BADSITES discussions, that principle ceases to drive their reasoning when the question turns to free expression for MONGO. What takes its place is a very hard line WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA applied with a selectivity that demonstrates genuine chutzpah. If the Committee accepts this case I urge the examination of all involved parties' conduct. Durova^Charge! 08:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

With regard to Thatcher's comments, in my eyes it's less a matter of whether certain individuals actually create such links themselves and more a contrast of the extremely lenient WP:NPA scope they extend toward those who do, versus the extremely stringent WP:NPA interpretation they advance regarding those who oppose the practice. It simply isn't tenable to endorse inconsistent policy interpretations that ensure one person gets baited, then hold him solely responsible for taking the bait. Taking bait is wrong, no question about that. So is the creation of an unequal playing field. Durova^Charge! 20:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131

Indeed, Viridae's quotation from WP:NPA stands in direct opposition to the Conflict of interest guidelines. If we consider the external affiliations of editors who make content edits that violate the principles of neutrality, verifiability, and so on, then can't we also consider the external affiliations of editors who make policy changes that are driven by those affiliations? That said, if this case is accepted I would like to see evidence that Viridae and Dtobias actually have introduced harassing links under the umbrella of their preferred version of the links policy, as opposed to assertions that they intend to do so. Thatcher131 12:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Crum375

I was added to this RfArb despite minimal involvement, but here is my perspective. From what I can tell, there are some admins and contributors from vicious attack sites that regularly engage in attacking, harassing, and attempted outing of Wikipedia editors. That these individuals are actually allowed to edit on this site is unacceptable to me, as their promotion of their external attacks clearly violates WP:NPA and WP:COI. They appear to have taken charge as a group of WP:NPA, and prohibit any change in its language to inhibit linking to the material on their attack sites, as a form of harassing our editors here. They also regularly bait User:Mongo, who has been viciously attacked by one of their sites in the past, and who is valiantly trying to hold off their gradual dilution of the NPA policy. This situation is appalling, requires action, and I hope ArbCom can act to bring it to an end. Crum375 (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Spryde

My involvement in this case stems from my participation in the NPA discussion and more specifically, the external links debate about what language should be included. I admittedly came late to the "party" but I immediately saw something wrong with the language that was trying to be inserted into the paragraph (this was, and still is, my opinion until all my questions are answered in a straight forward manner). I had a problem with the content and no issue with any particular editor. I stayed out of the debate until I saw the attacks based on "who" was inserting "what" instead of "what". The core part of NPA and we state it boldly at the top of the page is "Comment on the content, not the contributor." and ironically enough, this was most certainly not being done in discussion of the language at WT:NPA.

I am not going to link the same paragraphs as above as that would be rehashing old news. My concerns stem from the recent re-addition of the language without discussion and the subsequent actions by a few people on the side wishing to insert the language back into the article. This starts on or about October 31st where both sides of the debate, including MONGO, agreed to a version of the language to be included. This calmed tensions and it seemed the issue was finally settled after 6 months of debate. The NPA page was unprotected, the agreed upon language was inserted and two weeks of peace and calm pass with no incidents relating to this surfaced, were discussed on ANI or other noticeboards, etc. (and none have been provided by those wishing to insert the language). On November 15th, MONGO claimed WP:BOLD and added back in a reworded version of the same language that was the heart of the dispute for nearly six months. This reignited tensions as those on each side started debate all anew.

We now are at a standstill again with the same issues that were debated for six months, a NPA page protected, and some people flinging accusations all around. All throughout the recent NPA debate, one side has tried to frame the other as supporting links to harassment , commenting not on the content but the affiliations of those who are involved in the debate, accusing the other side of harassment, accusing the other side of trolling, etc. The other has asked good faith questions of which some have been answered, some answered vaguely, and others ignored. Based on the prior behavior in this debate and the edits that triggered the new edit war, an RfC was filed on MONGO because of the behavior displayed during the past six months of this issue that may or may not continue into the future, not to gain an upper hand in the debate on the NPA issue. I participated in the RfC mainly because of the manner of which the text was reinserted. WP:BOLD states that editors should act bold (revert and discuss to follow). People who act bold often fail to read the rest of the guideline. The rest states, "… but don't be reckless. ... The admonition "but do not be reckless" is especially important in other namespaces." with the last portion from "Non-Article Namespaces". MONGO is not a stupid person (far from it). He knew this would touch off yet another edit war as the previous version took nearly six months to develop. This is the very definition of disruptive editing.

I have asked questions throughout the current discussion and have yet to have anyone supporting the new text answer this very simple question: "What changed?". This question merely asks what happened in the last two weeks to prompt such a bold change to this very contentious section. Two other important questions have yet to be clearly answered by anyone supporting the inclusion of the next text are "What is deficient about the previous version?" and "What situation would the previous version allow and the proposed version not?". I can't speak for others but I have been discussing in good faith with the other editors despite their very blatant display of lack of good faith. Few have even asked us why people are objecting to the wording. They are spending their time attacking the contributors through direct comment and by attempting to frame the debate as those who support linking to harassment versus those bravely standing in their way^[42]. I can't speak for others but I am trying to get a clearer picture of what is going on to prompt this change from the previously agreed upon version and getting mud and other brown substances flung at me in the process.

This leads me to the fiasco that was and is the RfC. I have participated and brought good faith issues to the table as well as Alec and others. Others have called the actions and those who brought forth and certified the RfC:

• "harassers" or the RfC constituted harassment: [43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48],
• "baiting" [49],[50]

And this in my opinion is the most disgusting comment of all^[51] :

“ This RFC has been useful only insofar as it provides us list of all the ED-aligned nogoodniks who need to be watched and dealt with. Thanks! ” — FeloniousMonk

This absolutely shows the lack of good faith by some users in this whole process. By the very definition of WP:NPA, this is a comment that this person is basing their judgment not on what content and comments people provide but the comm enters themselves. The fact that this came from an Admin shocks me to the core. Clear evidence has been provided. Dispute resolution has been tried. One side has consistently mocked the process and the contributors while others tried to resolve differences without resorting to this ArbCom. It is very telling when people jumped into the RfC and supported the two positions that this is harassment and to have it closed immediately also did not support the most common sense item that every Wikipedian should stand for^[52]:

“ Civility, and No Personal Attacks, if they are to be meaningful, must be applied in an evenhanded manner. The fact that somebody has made great contributions to Wikipedia, and/or has lots of friends, does not give them a blank check to be uncivil and abusive and then dismiss all criticisms of their behavior as "harassment". Conversely, the fact that somebody is less well-liked does not give anybody else a blank check to engage in namecalling aimed at them; not even banned users should be publicly attacked as "moronic trolls" or such. Somebody who is insistent that parts of NPA be enforced strictly or strengthened should be especially careful not to violate other parts of it themselves; he who is without sin should throw the first stone. ” — *Dan T*

I am here to edit an encyclopedia. I have stated the principals I believe. I have even codified why I believe WP is here and why I am here in the first place on my user page. I want to be able to edit in peace without worrying that even good faith actions will be acted upon by those hellbent on purging WP of every last item and person they do not like. It is clear that ArbCom needs to deal with this issue and the behavior of more than just MONGO.

Addendum 1

Crum375's statement reinforces my statement through example. He is not commenting on the content but on the contributors of the content both on WT:NPA and here as well. I have never been involved with the ED cases nor ED itself (except as a reader to familiarize myself with all the background on this issue). Crum375 continues to lump myself and Alec into this group when I have expressed what my true concerns are (the content of this encyclopedia).

Statement by Dtobias (Dan T.)

I'm away on vacation for this (American) Thanksgiving week, and had intended to make it a more-or-less "Wikibreak" as well; not the somewhat pompous sort where I would make a long "goodbye and good riddance" rant (and soon be back anyway), but just a decision to quietly cut back my participation here (especially in politically-sensitive areas) because doing so has such a tendency to get me angry, and anger is not a good emotion to have while you're participating in a cooperative venture.

However, I seem to be dragged into this thing here, so I'd better make some sort of a statement. I don't need to say much, since others have made my point pretty well already (including even bringing in some of my own prior statements). The point here is not to rehash or reargue the BADSITES debate; that's the subject of a recently concluded ArbCom case and we certainly don't need another one. And the point is not to "harass" MONGO or anybody else; calmly discussing whether somebody's behavior is helpful or harmful to the project is not harassment. People keep saying that I cheapen the concept of harassment by the things I've done to ridicule BADSITES, but I think others are doing a fine job of it themselves when they apply the label to any instance of somebody saying something they don't wish to hear. Even a discussion on the mailing list of whether it might be desirable ever to have an article about Encyclopedia Dramatica, should appropriately reliable sources for its notability emerge, has been labeled as "harassment" of MONGO despite his not being either a subject or a participant of this discussion. Clearly, the concept has been stretched very far.

To answer some other points alluded to above, I don't believe that I've added any links (in recent months since BADSITES became a big issue) to the so-called "attack sites" in question (save for, in a few cases, reverting what I considered unjustified deletion of links others had added, usually in very old archives). A long time ago, I sometimes linked to those sites for the purpose of ridiculing them (I sometimes used names like "Wiki Whiners" to describe them); this is not the most civil of attitudes for me to have taken, and not necessarily anything to be proud of, but it wasn't aimed at Wikipedians, but at the anti-Wikipedia sites and the people on them. Saying that my opposition on principle to BADSITES and anything like it is out of desire to link to this stuff for the purpose of harassment is a huge and unjustified stretch, especially since I supported the wording in NPA that explicitly said that linking for the purpose of harassing is wrong and prohibited. MONGO also supported that wording, so I ask too "What changed since then?"

If anybody thinks I'm taking the position "I'm right; I'm perfect; Those other guys are wrong and bad!", then far from it. I know I'm imperfect. You don't have to dredge up old mailing list postings of mine to show it, as some have; I know that I've said and done things that don't live up to the high ideals I sometimes preach. Maybe I'm not the one to "throw the first stone". But somebody ought to look, in a fair and evenhanded manner, at the behavior of MONGO and some of his friends... and also at the behavior of his enemies and opponents... yes, at mine too. I really hope it can be accomplished without anybody getting banned (no, I'm not seeking a ban for MONGO), since there's been way too much banning going on lately. The concept recently being promulgated from up high (originating with Jimbo himself) to ban for "low-level trolling", a vague and subjective concept that can cover any activity that is found annoying by people of higher status than the one being examined, is a very disquieting thing and puts everyone in fear that they'll be the next to bear the brunt of it. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Krimpet

I really don't have any interest in getting further involved with this dispute. I seem to have been added to this case because I protected WP:NPA after the last revert war. There's been a lot of immaturity and lack of decorum on both sides of this dispute, and I really wish people could grow up, stop the personal attacks and mindless edit warring, and work together on forming a policy acceptable to the entire community. --krimpet⟲ 19:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Revised statement by Mangoe

I have decided that it simply isn't worth investing my diminishing sanity in another round of this and am therefore rescinding my statement. Mangoe (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

I've no idea what all the fuss and fighting is over. I suspect that the Committee is for the most part equally ignorant on this, for Wikipedia policy on attacks is quite clear, whether we have it written down or not. We don't permit Wikipedians to attack one another on the wiki, and it doesn't matter what weapons they choose to use for the purpose: whether by direct accusation, by sly innuendo, or by reference to purported external information of a venomous rather than informative nature, whether vaguely adumbrated or directly quoted. It would be sensible to adopt this case for the sole purpose of reiterating this policy, however obvious it may seem. --Tony Sidaway 22:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Thomas Basbøll

My experience with MONGO in other contexts (see MONGO 2 RfC)suggests that arbitration is probably necessary. The RFCs that have dealt with his behaviour (and the editing controversies that these have resulted from) have the distinct appearance of a battleground. This is no doubt not MONGO's fault alone; he has allies and enemies to share the blame with. The result so far has been that neutral editors, i.e., those who are neither friend nor foe, have been pushed off the articles, and often after being unfairly lumped into one or another camp. I have long hoped that ArbCom would take a stand on this problem. In my opinion, Wikipedia does not need a "war against trolls". Right now, however, that's what we've got. MONGO may ostensibly be on the "right" side, but he is not likely to win a peace.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: The above was written before MONGO added me to the list of involved parties. If the scope of this arbitration is in fact to be extended then the MONGO 2 RfC should probably also be counted as a previous attempt to resolve the dispute. At that time, a number of us certainly did raise concerns about MONGO's incivility along similar lines as the MONGO 3 RfC. As in this case, we had a hard time getting commentators to concentrate on the behaviour itself rather than the issues that occasioned it, and the targets it was directed at.

His defenders argued mainly that, given the targets, his sometimes (regrettably) aggresive posture was generally warranted. MONGO himself maintained that he "had done nothing to warrant" the RfC, which struck me as odd because surely the act of requesting comments is not itself punitive. The RFC in any case closed with the following diplomatic summary: "MONGO should please refrain from being overtly rude to vandals, POV-pushers and trolls, however richly they may deserve it, but as complaints go this one has no legs." Whether or not I richly deserved to be treated rudely was left a bit vague, though I got the sense that I was thought of mainly as unavoidable collateral damage in a noble and at times somewhat epic struggle.

It should be emphasized that if the summary had said simply "MONGO should stop being rude to editors he thinks are vandals, POV-pushers, or trolls, regardless of whether he is right to think so" (a rather small difference in wording) it would have granted my complaint pretty much all the legs it desired (though "rude" is a bit of understatement). If the Arbitration Committee could make a statement to that effect in this case (with some sort of enforcement to back it up) Wikipedia would certainly become more enjoyable for serious editors and, I suspect, less fun for vandals and trolls. MONGO's approach to conflict (whatever the issue may be, it seems) simply encourages drama.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Could the filing party please clarify how Dtobias and GTBacchus, who are listed as parties, are involved? Picaroon (t) 03:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Both have been attacked by MONGO in the same manner as he has attacked Alec and myself, attacking their affiliations. Viridae^Talk 03:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/2/0/0)

• Reject. I'm certainly not comfortable with some of the language used; robust debate is OK, but everyone should be aware that edged weapons of rhetoric do not build consensus. On the other hand, we all know that the basic issue has been very divisive, and yet a working consensus of the place of WP:NPA in the context of external linking and WP:HARASS seems to be emerging. This is what the ArbCom would prefer, to having to intervene again to deal with ad hominem arguments (which are not always fallacious). Charles Matthews (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Mongo's behaviour has been problematic. Paul August ☎ 20:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. This endless infighting needs to stop, voluntarily or otherwise. Kirill 20:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Echo Charles's comments, but sadly I feel that appealing to that participants not to attack each other will fail to work. James F. (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Reject per Charles. Our main mission is to decrease disruption so that folks can go about their work here. I don't think opening another case on this topic will help us achieve this mission, instead it will promote more drama. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Anonimu

Initiated by Will ^(talk) at 02:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Biruitorul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Istvan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• K. Lastochka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AdrianTM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Turgidson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Anonimu, Biruitorul, K. Lastochka, Istvan

I am aware. Biruitorul (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I too am aware. K. Lásztocska 02:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am aware but mostly out of pocket till Dec. István (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anonimu
  • Masses of AN, ANI threads and talk threads, all available on the RFC page.

Statement by Sceptre

Anonimu is a problem user. I first ran into him during the now infamous "nuclear rowboat" saga on ANI, several months ago. I kept a watch over his contributions to watch out for more examples, and there were plenty. Anonimu has broken as many policies and guidelines as there are arbritators: NPOV, OR, CIVIL, AGF, USER, 3RR. I suggested that he be placed under the general Eastern European restriction, but the incivility he's shown would've got him banned without the restriction. It's time to get an end to this, once and for all. Will ^(talk) 02:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Biruitorul

I echo Sceptre's sentiments, and it is not my intention to rehash the tedious, draining arguments that for months on end have consumed our time and energy in dealing with Anonimu. Let me just say that Anonimu has clearly and unequivocally violated numerous core Wikipedia policies (most frequently but certainly not limited to NPA, CIV, AGF and POINT). Yes, the complainants here hold rather different political views from his but that is not the crux of the matter: I for one work well with people all over the ideological spectrum, provided they show some modicum of respect and courtesy. That has never been the case with Anonimu, and that is why we are here. All along, he has shown himself a petty, vindictive and dangerous miscreant whose actions threaten the integrity of the project. That is what has pushed our tolerance well past its limits, and why I urge arbitrators to impose a ban. Biruitorul (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by K. Lastochka

Agree with both above statements. Anonimu's behavior is, even ignoring completely any political differences that inflame the issue, completely uncivil and disruptive and obnoxious. For as long as I've known him he spends far more time needling other editors, edit-warring and deliberately provoking arguments and incivility than he does writing anything constructive or useful to the project. There are some editors who contribute prolifically and competently enough that I'm willing to cut them a bit of slack with regards to a bad attitude (tireless mapmaker Panonian comes to mind--where's he been these days btw?) but Anonimu in no way falls into that category. He contributes nothing to the project except headaches and wasted energy on the part of the editors in good standing who have to put up with his beloved pastime of picking fights. K. Lásztocska 05:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by István

I too agree that Anonimu should not edit the Wikipedia. A description of his disruptive behaviour is found at his RfC. Please note that this has nothing to do with POV, but rather the relentless and disruptively incivil assertion of it beyond any standard of reason. Do not be fooled into thinking that this is about content or personality clashes. It's about civility - something the wikipedia is increasingly challenged to maintain as it grows.

In the past we were challenged by bored teenagers writing swear words and blanking pages. Today, we deal more with relentless ideologues (esp. on East/Central European topics) and POV pushers who dont go away because they are convinced they are right and all others (including those who write and publish) are wrong. In the future, when the wikipedia is finally recognized as the "brain of the world" (or something similar) we will have the even more difficult task of removing stealth spam from bored or struggling brand managers; doing so effectively (mark these words) will require a general ethos of civility and a reason-first attitude - one that does not tolerate disruption for its own sake. The alternative is decline (I'm not here to erect the world's largest free billboard - something the universe can do without). Back to point - this is not about Marxism or semantics or content, but disruption. István (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Biophys

I had very little interaction with Anonimu. But he was often involved in RR warring with other users [53] [54] [55], and yes, he has very strong political convictions [56].Biophys (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Turgidson

I too agree that Anonimu should not be editing Wikipedia. He is very disruptive, engaging in constant reverts and such, almost never making an effort to actually improve or expand articles. After making numerous attempts at discussing things with Anonimu on talk pages, I've come to the sad conclusion that it's just about impossible to reason with him, or to get him to see that others may have a valid point, or that there is such thing as a consensus against his position among the other editors, or that he should defer to reliable sources when they overwhelmingly contradict his point of view. His tactics are simple: he never budges an inch, he is always on the attack, never seeks compromise or consensus, always ready to spread invective and scorn on people who disagree with him, always ready to impugn the motives of others. To say he lacks civility is the mildest I can put it. It's all very tiring, upsetting, and time consuming, and saps the energies of editors who actually are trying to improve WP, not disrupt it. Turgidson (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by AdrianTM

I will keep it short. The main problems are incivility, personal attacks, and revert warring. The RfC and its talk page are evidence enough for incivility and personal attacks, he uses personal attacks as weapons even when he tries to defend himself of the accusations of incivility and personal attacks. As for revert warring it's detailed here in his RfC. -- AdrianTM (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

As long editors can discuss and conclude what most reputable sources say, articles can progress. When editors have excuses for why they have no sources, editorial debate and progress halt. Incivility only compounds the matter.

I asked Anonimu about his participation in this RfAr. Anonimu responded: that reputable sources "lie", that it's all "personal" (not about sources), that he has "answered all charges" in his RfC and will not participate. (My response)

Since Anonimu refuses next steps in dispute resolution and that the RfC stands as his answer to all charges, I respectfully request this action proceed to a conclusion. — PētersV (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu is aware of the request, see his notice deletion comment. PētersV (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu has indicated: As for your comment on the RfA, i didn't say i won't participate, just that i'll add my comments only if an ArbCom member wants a clarification of my position or one of my replies on the RfC. I see no other reasons to contribute to that discussion, since i'm not guilty of any charges.

   If Anonimu made an offer of responding for clarification, it was not in what I cited (earlier diff). PētersV (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Accept. Kirill 19:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Accept Paul August ☎ 18:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Episode and character articles

Initiated by Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) at 21:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Bignole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DanTD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ned Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Peregrine Fisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sgeureka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ursasapien (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• White Cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yukichigai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiating party)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• TTN, White Cat, Peregrine Fisher, Sgeureka, DanTD, Bignole, Ned Scott

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Episodes -- (TTN refused to participate)
• [57]
• Numerous sections found in TTN's talk page archives, but in particular:
  • User_talk:TTN/Archive_9#I_think_you_went_against_yourself_there...
  • User_talk:TTN/Archive_9#Episode_articles
  • User_talk:TTN/Archive_9#Redirects
  • User_talk:TTN/Archive_9#Your_contributions
  • User_talk:TTN/Archive_8#Characters
  • User_talk:TTN/Archive_8#From_the_VG_merge_discussion
  • User_talk:TTN/Archive_8#Mass_redirection_of_Kim_Possible_character_articles
  • User_talk:TTN/Archive_6#List_of_Teen_Titans_episodes
  • User_talk:TTN/Archive_6#Episode_pages
  • User_talk:TTN/Archive_6#Your_behavior
  • User_talk:TTN/Archive_6#Your_edits_to_List_of_Weeds_episodes

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive255#Mass_deletion_of_television_articles_by_TTN
• [58]

• [59]

Statement by Yukichigai

Over a period of several months TTN has engaged in a pattern of edits performed on various fiction or fiction-related articles which has caused a large amount of discordancy and general unpleasantness on Wikipedia. The core of these actions has been a large-scale and often times very hurried blanking and redirecting of numerous episode or character articles to a related "parent" article, usually with no information from the smaller articles retained in the course of the "merge" and often times with little discussion of the matter. When there is a discussion opened TTN is either absent from the process or completely unmoved by any opinions which do not agree with his own.

While on their face these actions are not particularly different than those of many other "passionate" or "strong willed" editors on Wikipedia, TTN's behavior is particularly troubling because of the sheer number of such edits he performs in a given day of editing and his relative inflexibility in compromising on his edits. On casual glance I can find several instances where in a ~12-hour period TTN has blanked and redirected over 200 articles, and in situations where such edits have been reverted the only edits TTN has subsequently made to that article have either been the addition of {{merge}} tags or additional reverts to turn the article into a redirect page.

Furthermore, there is a sense of what can only be described as spite in many dealings with TTN. When responding to editor comments on talk pages TTN has implied he will achieve his goals by edit war attrition, openly expressed his intention to engage in a revert war, stated that the number of users who disagree with him "doesn't really matter", threatened to take articles to AfD if users don't go along with his merge and then effectively called those users stupid. TTN has also indicated numerous times that when it comes to merge discussions acceptable consensus is what he says it is.

Irrespective of the nature of the policies and guidelines TTN is upholding, his execution thereof is having a vastly detrimental effect on both the mood of editors and the quality of Wikipedia as a whole. Attempts to reason with him or otherwise convince him to conduct himself in a more pleasant and less off-putting manner have met with no success. Based on his unwillingness to participate in the WP:AN/I discussion and several comments on various talk pages I feel that there is no way to persuade him to change his behavior other than Arbitration.

Statement by sgeureka

First and foremost, I strongly believe that an article needs to satisfy wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or should at least demonstrate its potential to do so. So, it seems, does TTN. There are some TV shows that have already shown that individual episode articles are not necessary at all, e.g. Smallville (season 1) (much work done by User:Bignole), and the Carnivàle articles, which may soon become the first TV show to become a Featured Topic without a single episode article despite having a huge 18 episode-specific award wins+nominations per 24 episodes ratio to demonstrate episode notability. Since fiction is so popular, merging is often necessary to refocus on real-world information (production, writers' inspiration, reception), not blow-by-blow plot summaries that very often tend to violate WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:NOR (both a policy); WP:EPISODE, WP:FICT and WP:WAF (fiction notability and style guidelines); and WP:TRIVIA and WP:QUOTE (other guidelines). I should probably state in this light that I support the enforcement of policies and guidelines but not necessarily TTN's actions.

There are obviously controversies and edit wars between TTN and fans, e.g. at List of Farscape episodes and List of 3rd Rock from the Sun episodes. It's understandable why some fans are upset about TTN's measures and forget civility in the heat of the moment, but as far as I can tell, TTN presents WP's policies and guidelines very calmly to them (compare any thread on his talkpage, although he may sometimes be too detached from what fans want wikipedia to be, and too rational on following/enforcing guidelines). Since TTN does this almost every day, I do also understand why he stayed away from the AN/I episodes discussion where some editors kept ignoring the necessity of following policies and guidelines. The discussion there grew somewhat tiresome and went in circles after a while, and the blame was/is still continuously put solely on TTN although many other people argued reasonably that his actions are supported by (1) policies and guidelines, (2) editors who like fiction, (3) editors who are not as deletion-minded as TTN. I'd like to highlight that TTN leaves the merge/redirect discussions open for over a month now and clearly states at the beginning that he disregards WP:ILIKEIT !votes.[60] [61] He has also repeatedly said that he just wants to see a minimum of notability and would then no longer consider redirecting the article.[62] Surprisingly, almost no fan adds (or even shows the existence of) this kind of information, actually supporting TTN's view that the episodes are nonnotable / have no significant secondary coverage by reliable sources to justify a separate article, or that it is unlikely that this kind of information is ever added if even fans refrain from adding it in the light of losing articles. Out of interest, I tested whether TTN asks for too much, with an average episode of Stargate SG-1 (almost none of their articles establish notability at the moment) - this is the result of three hours of work of research. I'll let other be the judge.

As taking episode articles to AfD is frowned upon (e.g. here), I consider the month-long episode notability & merge discussions completely appropriate. I do however see why fans are so critical of the redirecting (instead of the claimed merging) business. To accomodate fans a little, I suggested to TTN some days ago to just "dump" all old plot summaries (and add cleanup tags) into the episode lists in the merging process instead of just redirecting, and he replied "It may work for a couple people here and there, but the rest will just complain about something else.". I can't tell whether he is right with his assessment, but I would still prefer this approach instead of just redirection. Still, my desired outcome of this case (if it should open) would be to strengthen the awareness and acceptance of WP:FICT/WP:NOTABILITY and WP:EPISODE and the continued review of episode articles. I'd consider it a bad precedent for WP:NOT#PLOT and co if the huge number of guideline-ignorant (willingly or unwillingly) fans can annul the enforcement of policies. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Added As Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions states, applying the reasonings of I like it, It doesn't do any harm and Notability is inherited (amongst others) for keeping articles should be avoided in deletion discussions (and probably also in merging/redirecting discussion). The same is true for the exact opposite reasoning for deletion. WP:PAPER states in bolded letters that This policy is not a free pass for inclusion. WP:CONSENSUS, which was/is required to create and maintain the guidelines and polices, states that [consensus] always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies. In the absense of reasonable proof that a specific article does not violate existing policies and guidelines (or won't soon anymore), wikipedia has shown that it prefers to err on the safe side (e.g. WP:CRYSTAL, WP:BLP, WP:SPEEDY). However, per Assume good faith, these rules have previously not been (strictly) enforced for fictional topics because there were more pressing issues. But in the end, fiction is just another wikipedia domain where the same (strict) guidelines and policies apply, and it is high time that these are enforced, starting with the articles that least qualify for passing. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Eusebeus

I am a strong supporter of what TTN is doing, so my bias is clear. That disclaimer proffered, I think this arb case is wholly inappropriate and I urge it be rejected. This is really a debate about policy, since it would be hard to argue that TTN has engaged systematically in behaviour that falls outside of long-elaborated, consensus driven policy (noted above variously at WP:FICT, WP:N, WP:NOT, etc...). The real tension here is between franchise fans, who support the family of articles of their favourite TV series, and editors like TTN and others (me) who assert the encyclopedic standards that have developed over the years.

Thus, I see this as a policy issue, not a personal issue. TTN engages in actions backed up by the consensus of our policies and guidelines. He frequently encounters (understandably enough) determined opposition from a small group of interested editors who don't care what policy is and who insist upon a "consensus" derived from a local canvassing; their reaction (linked above on TTN's talk page among other places) is often emotional, especially since they seem unwilling or incapable of reading through Wikipedia policy pages to understand the basis for such actions.

This is the source of the impasse. It is worth noting that precious few of these franchise editors care enough to participate in the ongoing debate at WAF, FICT or the episode subpage at AN/I - sustenance to the view that local fan concern does not redound to any larger encyclopedic ambition. I thus support what sgeureka states above and go further. If there is to be an arb case, let it focus specifically on the suitability of applying the policies we have governing television episodes, fictional characters, and the proscription against plot summaries, not the individual actions of TTN, which smacks of a run-around by editors who have otherwise failed to change the consensus view at the main policy pages. Eusebeus 15:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by White Cat

Hi, I am here as per notification on my talk page.

I think in core any large scale edits involving a mass number of "articles in general" must be based on a solid consensus. Mere disagreement in personal interpretation of a non-critical guideline is no such consensus. Encyclopedic standards are determined by the entire community as a whole including "franchise fans" and everyone else and not by an "elite group" of users in support of each other.

People blanking fiction related articles so far has failed to quote such a discussion that agrees with the mass urgent and indisputable blanking of poorly written (virtually any non-featured fiction related article) fiction related article. Furthermore people ("blankers" I'll reference them here for the sake of clarity) have been avoiding any serious discussion on the matter.

• An RFC is out of the question because RFCs deal with spesific articles or people which is not the case. The problem involves a broad number of people and a very broad number of articles. This problem is neither a spesific user or spesific article.
• A mediation isn't possible if people aren't willing to discuss this issue. Several users, even uninvolved ones have tried to resolve the dispute but their concerns were outright ignored (see example talk page). There is also evidence of motivation that goes beyond seeking proper citations and notability standards such as "ganging up" (other part of the thread 1 2) prior to AFDs or merge discussions which violates WP:CANVASS. Groups of people who request the redirectification turns out to be the same people. There is also the "ganged up" slow-paced revert wars for redirectification. For that particular random pick, I found this source and this source with a trivial amount of effort.

• There also is evidence of slow paced revert wars among other things that does not violate the word of but the spirit of policy (IMHO). This is despite an AFD closed with "a lack of consensus for deletion" despite somewhat weak keep arguments. I believe the article in question was created by TTN merging and trimming individual articles on fictional characters of the series into a character list. Therefore right now we have no mention of a single character that made an appearance in the Samurai Shodown video game series (at least I do not see it).
• The process of article development of WP:STUB -> start class -> b-class -> ga-class -> a-class -> featured class is not been observed. Any article below featured class may get redirectified or heavily trimmed (prompting redirectification later on) and even featured or formerly featured (Bulbasaur) articles aren't immune to this.
• I am not even counting the strain on the system due to this such as the orphanage of mass amount of fair-use images as a result. Their deletion aside, if the mass redirectification was done improperly we do have a serious backlog for undeletion of these images.

Although there is a jaw dropping and obvious problem, the community has so far had ignored the issue despite its scale. This may probably be because of its overwhelming scale. Community is uncertain weather or not to allow non-discussion speedy mass removals of content.

---

TNN's edit stats: (tool server)

• First edit: 19:42, 19 June 2006
• Total: 24454
• Mainspace: 18566
• Mainspace talk: 2777
• Non-Mainspace & Non-mainspace talk: 3111
• Unique pages: 11217
• Total/Unique pages ~ 2.18 (user has on average 2 edits per unique page)

There is evidence of redirectification/blanking starting with his 11th edit. To my knowledge TTN has not participated in anything else other than [mass] removal of fiction related articles through afds, redirectifications and any other means.

Reply to Jack Merridew

Some math for you:

• Price of the most expensive internal hard drive on newegg.com: a terabyte hard drive ($350)
• Conversion of a terabyte to kilobyte: 1TB = 1,073,741,824KB
• Lets assume that for the sake of calculations that an average featured article is 200KB.
• 1,073,741,824KB/200KB = 5,368,709 articles (total)
• Average overall donation to Wikimedia Foundation: $30
• Number of articles per average donation: (5,368,709*30)/350 = 460,175 articles.

In other words for a single 30$ donation we can have 460,175 articles. All this information was as of 17:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC).

• English Wikipedia only has 1683 featured articles.
• Total number of articles: 2,092,465
• 2,092,465 - 1683 = 2,090,782 problem articles that violate a guideline or policy for certain (not being featured)

There are over 2 million problematic articles on wikipedia. I see no sane reason to remove them in bulk for that reason alone. The problem of a lack of quality in vast number of articles is by no means unique to fiction related articles. It is a broad problem of any incomplete encyclopedia such as Wikipedia or Britannica. This report is as of 18:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC).

Some more fun math based on above numbers:

• Total number of articles on wikipedia: 2,092,465
• The number of articles you can 'buy' with $30 (they are all exactly 200KB each): 460,175
• Number of donations to cover hard drive space cost of every article on wikipedia with above assumptions: 2,092,465 / 460,175 = 4.55 donations
• Total cost for hard drive space of every article on wikipedia: $30 * 4.55 = $136.5

The cost does not even add up to half the cost of a single hard drive. Meaning if you double the total number of articles on wikipedia by adding 2,092,465 featured episode articles you would not even fill a single terabyte drive. Of course there is other costs such as administering and maintaining of hardware but those are equally trivially priced. The most important cost would be the bandwidth costs. If "no one cares about these topics" then there is no bandwidth issue either.

Even if such a problem did exist, you would still need a community-wide consensus to deal with it. Was this attempted? We do not let people just rampage across the wiki mass removing mass number of articles indiscriminately you know. A bot for example can make a good number of TTN's edits just as easily and much much more efficiently but there is no consensus for this. Even Autowikibrowser can do this. All the math above demonstrates that there is no critical problem requiring urgent action.

---

“ [...] There are hundreds of TV networks worldwide and they're all cranking out vast numbers of TV show episodes. This has been going on for decades and will only accelerate in the future. Do the math — this 'pedia going to host a million articles on TV show episodes? [...] ”

Any reason why not? Hard drives are cheap. Hear this interview on this blog out at "Wikipedia Is Just the Start: An Interview With Jimmy Wales (May 29, 2007)". Retrieved 2007-11-16.

“ [...] Wiki is not paper, meaning there's no reason for us to restrict our range of topics for reasons of space. It's all hypertext stored on the hard drive, and hard drives are cheap. And even some of the physical parameters that would limit us eventually don't seem to be even close to coming into play. [...] So I think that's one of the important parameters is to say, look, you really can't say that space is a constraint, so cutting things down based on space makes no sense. [...] And it seems to me that one of the mistakes that people make when we argue about this is to adopt a too rigid universalism of the who thing, in other words: to imagine that "Well gee, if we settle if we settle on particular principle with respect to this particular article in physics we're going to have to delete all the Pokeman articles, because we can't find any academic sources". And I think that's a mistake. I think it's a mistake to treat different realms of knowledge as if they are some how fundamentally the same. You can look a physics, and say look, a web page on Geocities, of commentary and listing about physics is not a really good source, unless you have some really compelling reason. Say: actually for some unknown strange reason some Nobel prize winner has his home page on Geocities then maybe OK. But in general no. Whereas for other aspects of popular culture, it's really kinda hard to say where else you go. Harvard University has so far failed to publish a Journal of Pokemon so there's not much academic commentary out there. ”

Before you dump this blog as non-reliable source, the author is David Weinberger, a fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society. And the person he is interviewing is our very own Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia.

With that statement of yours, you are not specifying a problem at all aside from the fact that that very argument is the pretense of the mass deletion.

---

Of course I do not expect the arbitration committee to deal with the philosophical nature of the issue. The issue I want arbitration committee to look into is this near-fanatical behavior some people against fiction related articles under false pretenses such as notability and WP:NOT#PLOT. Indeed articles need to meet such policies and guidelines but this does not mean people should be ganging up against fiction related articles by ignoring any opposition and by "picking off smaller ones".

The issue that needs to be resolve has nothing to do with the content of the individual episodes. The problem is this non-discussion imposed nominal consensus of an elite group of so-called experts. Jack Merridew is absolutely right. This problem isn't just about TTN there are other users such as Jack Merridew himself for example who engage in similar behavior to a lesser extent. This statement is intended to establish that this problem involves more than just TTN's edits. It isn't intended to accuse anyone of anything.

Unless a policy or guideline as immediate legal implications (WP:BLP, WP:C) there is absolutely no reason why WP:CON should be completely ignored both in word and spirit. Even then both WP:BLP and WP:C themselves are based on consensus. If people have no interest in seeking consensus, they have no business being a part of this community.

Reply to Fram

Who created that discussion? (Me) Is there a single discussion attempt the "blankers"/"redirectifiers" have initiated involving the entire community? (None that I can see) Are the actions of "blankers"/"redirectifiers" based on a discussion? (Not that I can see). Have at least some of these "blankers"/"redirectifiers" stated to "make it easy to ignore" people they are disagreeing with? Then how can anyone claim that the actions of the "blankers"/"redirectifiers" are based on a consensus? (Yes, according to the evidence I presented) If it is not based on consensus, what is it based on? (I really wonder this) WP:V does not even begin to come into play. The blanked articles typically contain a plot summary which indeed is sourced. The source is the episode itself. A reliable, verifiable, notable, peer reviewed source.

---

So far someone is yet to explain why we hate to have a non-discussion speedy mass blanking/redirectification of mass amount of pages.

Comment by Peregrine Fisher

TTN is using redirection (under the guise of merging) and slow motion edit warring (make two reverts, wait 24 hours if necessary before making more) to make an end run around AfD. It's because he doesn't like the results there, where he can't control the final decision. He's pretty rude about it as well, with comments like "Please read over WP:3RR, especially the nut shell. Anyways, I'm sure you'll back down before I do. TTN 23:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)"[63] being typical. - Peregrine Fisher 15:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by GDonato

I was aware of this issue, or made aware of it if you want to put it that way, a little while ago and I must admit that some of the behaviour by editors in blanking or redirecting episode-related articles concerned me. Pretty much all of the diffs have already been shown above so I will not pull out anymore. I can say that I have seen cases where not even a rough consensus has been present and editors (User:TTN and perhaps others) have proceeded to carry out mass-redirecting anyway. I agree with White Cat's statement that the community has somewhat tried to ignore this issue due to the fact that it is difficult to deal with and I believe that an arbitration case is likely to be the most effective way to solve the problems. GDonato (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ned Scott

Using arbcom to handle this situation is probably not the best idea. We don't come here to set policy. If this is about how TTN and others (possibly myself) have dealt with these situations, then I can see that, but please take into consideration the sheer amount of ranting and complaints that TTN has had to deal with. (not to say that all of the complaints where that way.) I'm also concerned that the reason this arbitration case was suggested was not to address the behavior of anyone, but rather to protect the fiction-related articles themselves from being merged, redirected, or deleted.

TTN has taken up a lot of work that no one really wants. I find myself making parallels between the responses people give him with the response people were giving when Betacommandbot started mass tagging. One of the big reasons fiction-related articles have grown so much out of control is because people don't want to put up with all the complaints by the local editors of those articles.

I believe the solution to a lot of these issues is not about having X article on Wikipedia or not, but finding it a proper home. No one likes to see the work they've done, or the work someone else has done, simply "go away". I myself have recently got involved in the first real/mass transwiki project that I've done, in relation to WP:DIGI and wikia:digimon, and hope to apply some ideas for the future.

A few of us attempted to make a review process for TV episodes at WP:TV-REVIEW. The process was attacked before it ever got off the ground, but we were able to organize several review discussions. The formality of the process is likely why it stalled, but I think we were still able to learn from it, We do still need a way other than AfD to deal with mass sub-fiction related articles.

In other words, we are trying to find better ways to deal with these situations. It will take some time, and more input from the community, to help make these things go more smoothly.

Fiction, entertainment, and pop-culture articles often have had situations like this, where when some people start getting strict about policies and guidelines, there are people who will be very upset about it. Other examples include Wikipedia:Trivia sections and Wikipedia:Spoiler. It is a very unfortunate situation, but I don't think it's fair to say that anyone is actually doing something "wrong" here. This is more than likely simply one of those growing pains for Wikipedia, as we find a better way to deal with these articles.

I don't always agree with everything that TTN does, and there are times when I wish he would be less aggressive. Often I look at my own past actions and wonder why I sometimes get so passionate about some of these things.

I honestly believe that, more than anything, we need direction and not hand slapping. I believe TTN, myself, and others on both sides of this dispute, will all be glad to find other methods to dealing with these articles that doesn't put us at each other's throats. I don't think we'll find the solution in an arbcom case, but it is likely that the attention we are getting right now is a good starting point for a new batch of discussion that will involve the greater community. -- Ned Scott 22:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ursasapien

This case has both broad and narrow implications. First, the broad issue is that Wikipedia must deal with the issue of fiction related articles, preferably sooner than later. Two broad groups are focused on this issue and a wiki-war has developed. The one side feel that Wikipedia has too many poor-quality or non-notable articles related to fiction. As the retitled request indicates, these articles generally involve television episodes and characters in fictional works (to include video games). This side believes that all these articles are damaging to the quality of the encyclopedia. They have been looking for various ways to clean out Wikipedia (deletion, redirection to lists, merging information, transferring to wikia, etc.)

The other side in this content war feel that, as there are no space limitations and no time limit, Wikipedia should contain an article on the latest episode of Kim Possible and editors should be given nearly unlimited time to come up with "real world" information like critical response or cultural significance. These editors contend that a large number of viewers is enough to establish notability.

There have been allegations on both sides and both sides saying they are using existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines like WP:BOLD, WP:IAR, and the like. Each side has accused the other of votestacking and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What has developed is an all out edit war. Of course, there is an even broader issue of notability and what that means. There is currently no movement to merge all articles on highways into List of highways in (State, Province, Country). So, somewhere, we as a broad community need to have the discussion and develop consensus regarding how we will cover fiction related topics and we need to clarify what notability is and how we establish it.

As for TTN's behavior, I have absolutely no doubt that he feels he is doing something incredibly valuble for the encyclopedia. In my honest opinion, wholesale redirection (usually without any merging) is not helping make the encyclopedia better and is only stoking the flames on this massive content war. To answer one of the arbitrators' question, yes there has been an RfC and other attempts at mediation. There has also been RfC's on editors in the opposing camp. TTN firmly believes he is in the right and he is often curt and blunt in his responses (skirting the edge of civility in my opinion). Nevertheless, I do not believe any editor can say his behavior is anywhere near "indisputably problematic." His behavior is disruptive for some editors and heroic to others. I would like to see him slow it down a bit (like 10 redirects a day and only 1 revert per article per day), until we can have the broader discussion in full, but YMMV. Ursasapien (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Jack Merridew

This is most certainly not merely about TTN's actions — which I whole-heartedly support. As I see it, the core issue is that it is too easy for editors to create a non-notable article about the latest episode of their favourite TV show – or blocks of episodes of older shows just released on DVD – and far too difficult for editors with a more critical eye to do something about it. As to the "merge-issue" — merge what? Most of the "content" is unencyclopaedic, unsourced, plot summary, cruft, and the onus is on fans to resurrect what they will in a policy-conforming form.

There are hundreds of TV networks worldwide and they're all cranking out vast numbers of TV show episodes. This has been going on for decades and will only accelerate in the future. Do the math — this 'pedia going to host a million articles on TV show episodes? These are for the most part non-notable. We need a speedier process of dealing with the backlog of dross and a higher bar for new episode articles to clear. --Jack Merridew 13:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

a succinct reply to White Cat

• They are NOT NOTABLE
• Where did I mention space as a concern? The NUMBER of non-notable articles (extant and potential) IS of concern. Poorly conceived articles require maintenance, occupy category space, and use names that are inappropriate (Command Decision, history and Midsummer Night's Dream, history) all of which are a burden on everyone
• The issue of too many non-notable articles underfoot needs sorting sooner rather than later because the scope of the problem keeps growing. First thing to do is stop digging the hole deeper.

In White Cat's statement he offers: "ganging up" prior to an AFD which violates WP:CANVASS — oldID

• That is a link to a comment of mine — diff
• It in no way concerns an AFD
• The only AFD that comes to mind is this one (see also)
• It has nothing to do with canvassing
• It DID concern the actions of some anon who was systematically removing clean-up tags from images and articles
• The anon had already been blocked twice (2 IPs)
• I was alerting another user to the problem

--Jack Merridew (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Sceptre

People not liking what someone is doing isn't vandalism at all. Ever since this came up, I've been constantly voting not to delete (at the start, "merge", to "speedy keep without prejudice to merge" due to WP:EPISODE asking editors not to AFD) on any AFDs that swing by. LOEs are fine, but 60-70 gargantuan plot summaries with trivia aren't. There's the matter of WP:COPYRIGHTS and WP:5P that discourages both. TTN would be fine to be bold on the first redirect, but if people oppose his merges, don't revert, fix the problem. TTN merges because there isn't real world information, or there is very very little (such as a singular Nielsen rating). Then look for it. How it was made. What reviewers thought of it. Seeing as there's about 50 (maybe more) episode GAs, look at them and model upon them. Don't edit war. It generates unnecessary drama, like this RfAr. Will ^(talk) 21:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by DanTD

I've been struggling to work on my statement, which is why I've taken so long to respond.

For the record, while I've been more passionate about protecting articles on Kim Possible episodes, I've been equally willing to protect articles on television episodes I either like, don't like, or am indifferent to. Yukichigai, White Cat, and Peregrine Fisher have already covered a great deal of what I wanted to say, but I'd like to add more. The current rampage of deletions without consensus has forced expansion of plot summaries into lists of episodes that would otherwise have their own articles, as in the case of the List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes. Upon reading the episodes "I Want My Mummy", "Arwinstein", "Team Tipton," and some others, the need for separate articles is clear. In the past, episode lists for Lizzie McGuire and Daria have also contained long plot summaries for some episodes, that require whole new pages. While I'm here I'd also like to raise the issue of the criteria for deletion. I have never objected to the idea that any articles should meet, or at least approach any of the guidelines. My grievances are that these mass deletions deprive editors of the ability to help them reach those guidelines. When articles are faced with the threat of deletion, TTN, and people like him keep insisting that we have to have "real world information" and "third party reliable sources" in order to keep the articles alive. The fact is, some of the criteria for "real world information," and "third party reliable sources" are virtually impossible to reach, especially if you intend to use them for characters such as blue-skinned failed scientific megalomaniacs with no positions of political power who seek world conquest, royal family members with genetically mutated appendages, teenagers who can transform into dragons, seasick sea serpents, talking animals, Klingons, Vulcans, Orkans, and other mythical and implausible beings. Supporters of his efforts have showed links to on-line newspaper articles, while failing to realize that these articles aren't permanent, and frequently require registration with each specific paper in order to read. Furthermore, not every episode of a TV show has had an article written about it, giving the appearance that only selected TV episodes can ever be written about. Criteria such as this makes television-related wikipedia projects elitist. To make matters worse, far too often TTN tends to change his mind about acceptable sources. At one point he told me that TV.com was acceptable, despite past criticism of the site, and later he reverted to saying it wasn't acceptable. Among the so-called "reliable sources" fansites have faced severe rejections. These are in fact the best sources for information, even if they don't provide a NPOV, because they clarify subjects that other users wouldn't be as familiar with. Every effort I've made to point out the benefits of fansites have been ignored, and every efofrt to reveal the damage caused by these deletions have beem dismissed. Every effort to transwiki the articles has failed as well, due partially to some technical problems and the lack of assistance from other users. On Sunday, November 11, 2007, during a break from an all-day heated argument with TTN, sgeureka revealed a past incident on wikipedia known as the Pokémon test. Until that point, I understood why such an effort would be carried out, but I still believe there's a clear enough distinction between "my Pokemon is more notable than yours," and the existance of an episode of a television show, as well as the events within the episode. In the meantime, TTN himself did offer me a redlink to my own sandbox, in hope of using it and others to upgrade the standards of the articles. Despite this, when I finally read the All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural) episode article, it became clear that is offer was little more than a ruse. In short, I can't help believing that the articles are being deleted just for the sake of doing so. Fewer of us are able to have good faith in his actions.

P.S.; I apologize if this is too long. ----DanTD (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Nydas

Massive, one-person crusades are an open door for bias. For example, TTN opposed the merging of Rinoa Heartilly into Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, even though the character is not any more notable than the thousands he's eliminated. Who knows what else he thinks is 'admissible'? My concern is that Wikipedia's systemic bias will be accentuated by this sort of campaign. We have 144 Scrubs (TV series) episodes, whilst The Golden Girls, a massive hit in the 80s, has no episode articles, thanks to TTN's redirection efforts.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Wizardman

I've only seen a small part of this iceberg; yet only from that little bit I urge arbcom to accept this case. Back in late June I began Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-26 List of Mario series enemies, where User:TTN wanted to merge all these enemies that had their own articles into one list. After a few weeks of mediation, we compromised; a few articles stayed intact, but most of the enemies were merged. Goomba, Koopa Troopa, and 1 or 2 others survived, the rest I decided to merge since TTN's argument was convincing enough. I thought this was it. Since then, TTN merged the ones that he agreed to keep separate, and even removed a lot of the enemies from the list that there was never a discussion on, appearing to show no desire to accept compromises. To make it easy for the readers:

• This was just before Mediation began
• Here's my compromise in action
• TTN accepted, merged everything, problem solved, right?
• Not even an hour later he tries to get the rest of them merged
• A month later, everything's merged, nothing else has happened, which means it should have been over. However,
• He strikes down a nice chunk of the article again, tries to move the last two
• Here's how it looks now

Now, overall this doesn't look like too big of a deal. However, multiply the situation on this article by at least 30 or 40 (he's hit at lest that many fields, How many exactly he hit I have no way to accurately count. With something of this scale, and probably more stories that parallel mine, this does need to be looked into. Is what TTN is doing good for Wikipedia, disruptive, or something else? One thing I can be certain of is that this has moved well beyond a simple content dispute. Wizardman 21:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Rdfox 76

I don't claim to be fully uninvolved in this issue--I've clashed with TTN before over some of the Kim Possible character and episode articles before, and I personally believe he isn't doing Wikipedia a service, but I recently noticed a discussion on his talkpage that I find quite disturbing. Here, TTN is informed that a page he redirected as a "merge" had already been through a past merge discussion that ended as a do-not-close. Out of curiosity on a dull Sunday morning, I went looking through it, and found that the article talkpage shows a nine-month-long merge discussion that was closed in early June as "oppose merge." While the exact wording isn't correct (it should have been "no consensus"), there was a brief revert war over closing the discussion, which ended with someone pointing out that the merge tag had been present for ten months, and that it doesn't take that long to come to consensus.

Less than two months later, TTN redirected the article to the main Dead Rising page. After User:Smile Lee reverted the redirect, pointing out (correctly) that the article had just been through an unsuccessful merge attempt, TTN put the redirect into place again. After a four-month gap that I admittedly don't understand the reason for, Smile Lee re-reverted to the non-redirected version; TTN redirected it again four minutes later; he has since twice reversed reverts of his redirection. This, in my opinion, is a rather POINTy way of operating, since it applied WP:IAR in an attempt to bypass the procedure that was already followed in a recent merge attempt; his returning months later to maintain his preferred edit smacks of bad faith. I also note that TTN made no effort to explain his reasoning to Smile Lee after SL brought it up on TTN's talkpage, either on SL's page (history) or on his own page (history).

Just my thoughts, but with TTN doing this sort of thing even when there's an RFArb pending on his actions, I think SOME sort of action has to be taken. Rdfox 76 (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Added note, not sure if this is appropriate or not (since WP:GAR is nicely unclear on this point), but apparently, TTN delisted four Pokemon that were listed as Good Articles without discussion or warning earlier today. Rdfox 76 (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Further added note, in addition to the delisting of the articles, TTN delisted and then immediately redirected Golduck from in that bit. (Just noticed this... I'm slow today.) Rdfox 76 (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Fram

If this case is accepted, I would urge the ArbCom to look at the two sides; those people that merge, redirect and/or delete episode articles, and those that create and recreate them. It has become quite clear to me that different editors who oppose TTN's actions (perhaps in some cases with very good reasons) don't see the problem with their own behaviour in creating poor episode articles, or reverting to them. It doesn't only violate a guideline, it violates some core policies, including WP:V. To solve this broad dispute, both sides will have to be looked at, and if it is found that TTN's way if acting is not the correct one, care must be taken that this is not presented as a free pass for episode articles which are almost nothing but huge plot summaries. The Statement by DanTD above is a clear indication of this perspective. And the line by White Cat that "Furthermore people ("blankers" I'll reference them here for the sake of clarity) have been avoiding any serious discussion on the matter." is clearly incorrect, as can be seen from e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Episodes... Fram (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wonders why I no longer discuss things with White Cat: shifting the goal posts (from "avoiding any serious discussion" to "not initiating a discussion") is a very annoying habit, and one of the explanations why I indeed avoid all discussions with you since the one referenced above, as they can hardly be called "serious". Fram (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

I've renamed this request from "TTN, part Deux" to simply TTN. A title regarding the pages on which the dispute is taking place, episode articles, is also a possibility. Picaroon (t) 02:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

• Accept. Given the sheer scale of TTN's activity, forcing the parties to go through the motions of preliminary dispute resolution while he continues unabated would be a bad idea. Kirill 21:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Questions? Has the editor received feedback from an editor conduct RFC? Has a true attempt at mediation of the dispute occurred? If an user's activity is indisputably problematic then the Community will usually handle it. Is there disagreement in the Community about how to handle the dispute? As a general rule, starting an Arbitration case against someone instead of following the steps of dispute resolution is not a good idea. Please make it clear why this case should be an exception. I'm not seeing it yet. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept to look at the conduct of all involved parties. We are not going to make content decisions. If the case is accepted, please focus your evidence and workshop proposals on ways to stop disruption and enhance collaboration on the topic. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Paul August ☎ 18:55, 20 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.

EK3 residual prohibition

On November 11, the main elements of the ruling Everyking 3, first imposed two years prior, expired. However, an AN discussion followed in which two arbitrators (Raul654 and Jpgordon) denied that some elements of the ruling had expired (remedies 5 and "X"), on the basis that those elements were not listed by name as expiring this November in the amended ruling of July 2006. However, I think that, because the amended ruling says that my previous restrictions (those imposed in November 2005) expire in November 2007, this logically must include everything that was imposed in November 2005, because it did not provide for any exceptions.

(The following, which could be interpreted as a violation of one of the prohibitions claimed to still be in effect, was approved for posting on WP:RFAR by Raul654.)

One of the prohibitions which I believe should now be considered expired deals with a certain user with whom I had a series of disagreements in 2005. This user has now left Wikipedia, with a parting message that gives every impression of finality. The practical reason I have sought to have my restrictions removed is not that I want to do the things they prohibit me from doing, but that the restrictions serve as a kind of "scarlet letter", and a case where I am prohibited from discussing or interacting with a user who has left Wikipedia is a perfect example of this: no benefit can come to that user from my restriction, since he has left, but I continue to suffer from the stigma of having that restriction formally applied to me.

I request, therefore, that the ArbCom determine whether the restrictions in question should be considered to have expired or to remain in effect, and if the answer to that is the latter, then I request that the ArbCom lift the restriction described in the previous paragraph. Everyking (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for expanded authority in the matter of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia

I request that the Committee enact a motion expanding the enforceable remedies in the Dalmatia case. While Giovanni Giove has continued to edit aggressively, he is not alone. Raguseo (talk · contribs) and Aradic-en (talk · contribs) are both relatively new accounts that edit solely on this topic and advance the same Croatian Nationalist POV. In addition, Raguseo has been abusing sockpuppets. Ghepeu (talk · contribs) (Italian side) and Kubura (talk · contribs) (Croatian side), while more experienced editors, have also participated in aggressive biased editing, although to a lesser degree that Giovanni Giove and DIREKTOR. DIREKTOR communicates extensively with Kubura and to a lesser degree with these other editors, frequently in Croatian [64] [65] [66] [67].

I request these additional remedies, patterned on RFAR/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2:

1. Any editor who edits articles related to Dalmatia (broadly construed to include ethnic and nationalist disputes between Italy and Croatia) in an aggressive biased manner may be placed on Supervised Editing and Revert Limitation by any uninvolved administrator. Editors under revert limitation are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and must discuss all reversions on the talk page. Editors on supervised editing may be banned from any or all articles relating to Dalmatia (as above) for aggressive biased editing or incivility. Violations may be enforced by blocks as described. Before any penalty is applied, a warning placed on the editor's user talk page by an administrator shall serve as notice to the user that these remedies apply to them.

Thatcher131 01:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to hold off acting on this for a bit; the current Macedonia case may wind up resulting in restrictions of some sort imposed over the entirety of Balkan topics, which would supersede anything imposed here. Kirill 02:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, so you'll patrol WP:AE for me, right? Dalmatia topics are going to get messy if Ragueso, Aradic-en, Kubura and Ghepeu are left unencumbered. Thatcher131 03:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Further note, Ragueso and Aradic-en 's first edits are just days before the Dalmatia case was accepted, so they missed the case by being too new at the time it was filed. Thatcher131 03:09, 17 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." [68]. 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)

Those are simply articles you stalked me to -- none of them were articles were we had actual substantive conflicts. I am asking for clarification of the arbitration decision; I think for the two articles named a better solution will be necessary as I have significant substantive problems with your use of original research on them. csloat 00:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that we had a conflict in all articles that we both edited, and there are too many of them. So let's follow good advice by Kirill.Biophys 01:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No; we had no substantive conflict over the other articles. The substantive conflicts were over those two articles and I will agree to leave them alone if you agree to the same. But I do not think it is a good idea to say that you "own" those two articles. csloat 07:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I submitted evidence in this case. Upon resolution, Biophys proceeded to undo all of my contributions to Operation Sarindar. We will hear no more of this, should both parties refrain from editing said two pages. Something, obviously, not for me to decide. smb 21:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding all article where they have both made significant contributions in the past sounds like the best solution to me. Divvying up mutually-edited articles based on who edited first isn't an optimal solution in my opinion. Picaroon (t) 23:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What does it mean a "significant contribution"? Are we going to dispute here our contributions to all articles? We need a formal and simple criterion. There are only two simple options. Option 1: we divide all articles that we both edited, as has been suggested above (note that we both are treated equally). This option is consistent with current ArbCom decision, as clear from the statement by Kirill. Option 2: we do not edit any articles that we both previously edited, however all our newly edited articles would still be divided according to Option 1. Then a new decision by ArbCom is needed, and we do not want that.Biophys 17:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The "significant contribution" standard seems clear enough to me. My interpretation of this would be any article in which both of us took a stake in the outcome, which can be determined by looking at edits. If you or I just came there to revert the other one a couple of times and didn't participate in talk, it would not be considered a significant contribution. But if we both made substantive changes to the article and participated in talk, it would be considered a significant contribution. This is an easily enforced standard, and we can clear it up right here. In my observation, the only articles where there is that much overlap is the Communist terrorism article and the Operation Sarindar article (which you have again changed the name of). I don't think you could make that case for any other article. csloat 21:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Biophys wrote: There are only two simple options. Fallacy of the excluded middle. Biophys and csloat can refrain from editing any article the other has made significant contributions to while at the same time both avoiding the two problematic pages that brought us here. Namely, Operation Sarindar and Communist terrorism. Fair and simple. There is no contradiction here at all. smb 21:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Those are two options noted by ArbCom member Kirill, and I agree with him.Biophys 22:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually those are two that you made up, which are different from what Kirill suggested. One of Kirill's options is the option I have advocated here. csloat 22:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Then let's move by little steps. Do you agree not to edit any articles that I have edited after this ArbCom decision and will edit in the future? I can promise you the same if you agree.Biophys 06:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't think such an arrangement is appropriate - the issue is the articles we've edited in the past where we actually had conflicts; arbitrary restrictions based on any edits in the future are useless here. And I'd rather not give each party an incentive to make meaningless edits on as many pages as possible to drive the other editor off pages. Perhaps if we simply agree to interact civilly with each other when we have to do so, we can avoid such arbitrary restrictions. If you are willing to do so I will certainly agree to that. The point is to actually address and resolve conflicts, not to draw arbitrary boundaries around them. csloat 08:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What you suggested would be a reasonable solution in the past. But right now we have ArbCom instruction to avoid each other, and we must follow that instruction. Not only you refused to stop following my edits in the past, but you just refused to stop following my edits made after this ArbCom decision, and instead suggested to single out several articles based on your choice.Biophys 16:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This back-and-forth between the two of you is ridiculous. The arbitrators reviewed the evidence of prior hostility between you and could have imposed substantial restrictions on both of your editing. Instead, they decided that fortunately, things were not so bad as in other cases that come before them and settled for asking you to avoid each other and stay out of each other's way. There is no reason why with a modicum of good faith, the two of you could not accomplish that. Instead, you are here practically begging the committee to impose much stronger sanctions against each of you. I suggest that you both stop this nonsense right now. Newyorkbrad 20:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for that. I agree to stop immediately, to consider this matter resolved, and to follow exactly the ArbCom instruction as clarified by Kirill. The instruction was "to refrain from interacting with or commenting about each other in any way". In particular, I am not going to edit any articles that have been created or edited by another side before me. I hope that will be enough to avoid any interaction. Biophys 20:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My only problem is that the arbcom decision was never clarified on this point. I have no desire whatsoever to further interact with the other party and don't plan to, but I also don't plan to avoid articles just because the other party demands that I stay away from them. Another important problem is that the arbcom decision did not address the other party's tendency to own articles, an issue I expect to see brought to admins' attention again in the very near future. csloat 15:55, 16 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.[69]. 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).