Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Statement by Elonka, re PHG
Line 372: Line 372:


Original research is not welcome on Wikipedia. PHG has been asked not to edit certain topics because he has been unable to comply with this requirement for whatever reason. If PHG is writing about these same topics in userspace, there is a high probability that it is original research. We should not be required to spend '''even more''' volunteer time to debug each incident. There is no reason for an editor to compile original research in userspace, and Wikipedia is not a hosting provider. PHG should be warned that this activity is not allowed, and that if continued, the result will be a block. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 12:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Original research is not welcome on Wikipedia. PHG has been asked not to edit certain topics because he has been unable to comply with this requirement for whatever reason. If PHG is writing about these same topics in userspace, there is a high probability that it is original research. We should not be required to spend '''even more''' volunteer time to debug each incident. There is no reason for an editor to compile original research in userspace, and Wikipedia is not a hosting provider. PHG should be warned that this activity is not allowed, and that if continued, the result will be a block. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 12:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

===Statement by [[User:Elonka|Elonka]]===
I see what Daniel is getting at here, and I support it, but think that it could be even stronger. The problem as I see it isn't just that PHG is continuing to skate the edge of his restrictions, but that he has never indicated, even once, an acknowledgement that he understood what he did wrong.

This is actually symptomatic of a larger problem which I see with the way that the Wikipedia culture implements blocks. And I am speaking here as a professional online community manager, who has been doing this for 18 years. In a nutshell: When someone is disruptive within a community, and they are blocked repeatedly, ''you shouldn't keep letting them back in'', unless the individual acknowledges that they understood what they did wrong, and further, ''that they are capable of promising that they're going to do better.'' Otherwise we are just setting ourselves up with a revolving door, where a disruptive editor just continues to disrupt. It ''is'' reasonable to give everyone a free pass for their first (and maybe second) block. But we should follow a three-strike rule. Three problems, and still no indication that the editor is going to do better, then they should just be "out".

PHG is a classic example of the problem. Even during his most recent block, he continues to argue with FT2, he continues to proclaim his innocence (see [[User talk:PHG#Block]]). Every indicator that I have seen from PHG, says that he is just going to continue with problematic behavior, that he is going to keep repeating the same arguments, and that he is going to keep on doing effectively the same things that led to the ArbCom case in the first place. In my opinion, what needs to be done is that he needs to be blocked indefinitely, ''until he is able to make a promise that he is going to do better''. If he can't do that, then don't let him back. We've all got better things to do with our time, than to keep cleaning up after him. I do understand the desire to "hope for reform," but it has to be a ''reasonable'' hope. If PHG gave his word that he was going to try to reform, sure, I could have hope too. But he has not. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 19:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


==== Statement by [[User:Username|other user]] ====
==== Statement by [[User:Username|other user]] ====

Revision as of 19:23, 18 March 2008

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

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:

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions   10 May 2024 0/4/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.


Current requests

9/11 conspiracy theories

Initiated by Ice Cold Beer (talk) at 21:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Ice Cold Beer

This case centers around the prospects of adding of pro-conspiracy theory language to articles related to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It is my belief that adding such language to these articles brings Wikipedia into disrepute and that users who continually attempt to add pro-conspiracy language into the encyclopedia are disruptive. Recently, the main article was fully protected as a result of the continual addition (and removal) of POV tags to the page. A mediation case was closed recently in which the prospects of changing the title of 9/11 conspiracy theories to what was perceived by some as a more conspiracy theory-friendly title. Many of those who wish to add conspiracy POV to these articles have constantly posted to Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories and Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, often times ignoring previously developed consensus.

While this debate has mostly remained civil, there are a few users with behavioral problems (I documented the behavior of one such user here). I urge the arbitration committee to accept this case to consider the harm brought onto the project by conspiracy theory POV-pushing and to consider the behavior of all involved parties. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by clpo13

This dispute seems to be at an impasse. One one side, there are the editors who feel that the term "conspiracy theory" is a pejorative and implies that the theories are false. On the other hand, there are the editors who think that the term isn't necessarily derogatory and is simply descriptive. Neither group seems willing to back down any time soon, so I think arbitration is the only solution remaining. --clpo13(talk) 21:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

I am not a party to this, I have no significant edits to any 9/11 articles as far as I can remember, all I did was take part in yet another long-winded explanation by long-standing users of why policy means we don't change the titles of articles to avoid offending Truthers. The mediation case was dead in the water from the outset - two main reasons were raised for wanting to change the title of 9/11 conspiracy theories, one was that because some sources identify the terrorist attacks as a conspiracy, then that makes the official version a conspiracy theory, a novel synthesis not made by a single reliable source; the other being that calling them conspiracy theories prejudges the content. It doesn't. It accurately reflects how Truther theories are viewed outside the Truther walled garden. Short of banning all Truthers on sight, which would make Wikipedia a far better place but probably play badly with one or two of our free speech advocates, I don't see anything ArbCom can do here. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Haemo

I'm not sure what the role of ArbCom here is supposed to, or should, be — the most serious issue here that reflects behavior is incivility, edit warring, using Wikipedia as a soapbox and tendentious editing practices. However, the core of the dispute is around neutral point of view, reliable sources, fringe theories, and their relationship to articles and subjects surrounding 9/11 conspiracy theories — i.e. a content dispute, compounded by the strong opinions, and almost exclusively carried forward by single-issue editors with a strong POV on the subject. In this sense, it is very similar to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The behaviorial issues are, however, not as severe as they were in that case — foreseeable outcomes from this case (unless the ArbCom takes an unprecedented step) are largely cautions and clarifications of Wikipedia's underlying policies with respect to this issue, as in the Pseudoscience case.

In the Pseudoscience case, ArbCom took a step towards ruling on content disputes, by spelling out interpretations of guidelines and policies. This is, primarily, the most substantial possible outcome from this case — but I'm not sure that ArbCom wants to take that step again. Is there an issue here? Yes. However, is it an issue for ArbCom to decide — I'm really not sure. --Haemo (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bulbous

This is my first participation in an arbitration case, although I have participated in a successful mediation. I was really hoping to see a more dispassionate and rational discourse. Unfortunately, from the barely-concealed vitriol of some of the preceeding statements, we can clearly see why we have ended up at this stage. Potential new editors are forced to deal with a handful of self-appointed wardens of the site who have summarized the events of 9-11 in their minds, and refuse to consider anything outside of those summaries. Any attempt to add content to the article outside of the government-prescribed record of events is met with scorn and ridicule. Editors who attempt to add such are called, (as noted above), "Truthers" or "Conspiracy Theorists" at best, and more commonly "morons" and similar. The attempt to rename "9-11 Conspiracy Theories" to "9-11 Alternative Theories" was defeated by editors entrenched in their beliefs, despite the obvious logical fact that a non-mainstream theory is NOT necessarily a conspiracy theory, and the attempt to portray it as such is obvious bad faith.

Having said that, I (like others above) am also not sure what the goal of arbitration would be in this case. Bulbous (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RxS

As much as I'd like to see an end to the continuous tendentious editing patterns and soapboxing on these pages, I'm not sure what Arbcom would be willing to do here. Having said that, I would love to see them examine everyone's editing here. If the result was only cautions to the editors most responsible for making a mess of these pages and wasting endless cycles we'd at least have a paper trail in case those same editors grow more disruptive. I don't expect this to be accepted, I'm not even sure they should given workloads etc. But there is a problem here and something will have to be done at some point. There are several editors here that have a long history of disruptive POV pushing, this may best be split into multiple editor RFCs for now.

Statement by MONGO

9/11 related articles have been under constant attack by those who want to include more conspiracy theories. Efforts to do so have been disruptive and I have all but vacated the impossible to keep up with talk pages related to these articles. There isn't anything I can see that is accurate about retitling the article 9/11 conspiracy theories to 9/11 alternative theories. The use of the word alternative would indicate that their theories really are alternate, or have some credence of factuality, when they don't. Sure, there are a very few questions that may seem to be not fully addressed, but the vast majority of 9/11 conspiracy theories are centered around the preposterous notions of "let it happen" and or "make it happen" and some even believe the U.S. government was the sole reason if did happen. Regardless, this is a content dispute, so what the committee would need to see defined is if individual editors have violated policies of course.--MONGO 07:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pokipsy76

I strongly dispute the presentation of the case by Ice Cold Beer. The point is not wheter we should add "pro-conspiracy" language but a wheter we should accept

  1. the current language which take advantage of possibly derogative terms in oredr to dirtly cast doubts on POVs without explicitly expressing it
  2. the minimal weight that is given to people disputing the mainstream account of the fact (being relegated in the main article in a super short summary in a subsection called "conspiracy theories")
  3. the actual impossibility (due to revert warring) to add true and sourced facts in the main article when these facts could seem strange with respect to the mainstream account.

I think WP:NPOV states clearly that all these points are not acceptable.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aude

This is not just a content dispute, but behavior from some editors on 9/11 pages has been disruptive with edit warring against consensus and tendentious editing. For example, edit warring by User:Xiutwel in the latest round led to full protection of the September 11, 2001 attacks article: [21] [22] (here he recognizes "no consensus" but edits anyway) [23] [24] [25]. This was a WP:3RR violation, but he was not blocked or reported at the time. He reverted one more time after he saw a warning left on the article talk page. User:Wowest has also been involved, with tendentious editing behavior. [26] [27] It would help if ArbCom could look at behavior of individual editors. Not all have been disruptive, but with Xiutwel, this has been going on for 2+ years (starting out with Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories). It gets very tiresome to stay involved on the 9/11 talk pages and wears people out. I like to do other things on Wikipedia with what time I have, and the 9/11 talk pages take away from that. Some of these other editors are here for a single purpose on 9/11 pages. Also, where does Wikipedia stand when it comes to tendentious editing and WP:FRINGE? --Aude (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/2/0)

  • Recuse. The World Trade Center site is located approximately four miles from my home, and the events of September 11, 2001 affected every aspect of my life. My personal feelings regarding various "conspiracy theories" surrounding those events leave me without sufficient confidence that I can evaluate editing in this area impartially. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. Similar reasons to Brad. Also, on general principle, any case with this many "parties" needs to be honed down and focussed to exclude kitchen sinks and general plumbing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. I think we'll be able to help here via some of the newer approaches to similar cases that we've developed. Kirill 04:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept per Kirill. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, per Kirill. FloNight ♣♣♣ 18:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. That said, I can see one way it may well go, and if the community would use that first it would probably save much time. This is what I'm thinking about: -
    In other major "point of principle" disputes, such as WP:SRNC, the issue has gone via dispute resolution to arbitration, but in the end it's gone to a very thorough and comprehensive type of consensus seeking on the matter, and it was that which actually resolved the dispute. Another example was the vote on Gdańsk naming1 2. Further examples of consensus-seeking in heavily deadlocked and heated areas include WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation and WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. What is important in each of these four, and what they all have in common, is that the underlying content issues were not resolved in fact by Arbcom action; rather, Arbcom action helped editors to realize they needed to engage in more measured than usual approaches to consensus seeking on the dispute. I would accept, but (without prejudging the case) would urge the community and interested users to also begin looking at these examples that were every bit as difficult in some ways, and maybe begin to discuss them together with a view to a formal consensus seeking approach in parallel with Arbitration to save time. A case like this has too many users and often reflects a genuine difference of view more than wilful breach of editing norms. In Arbitration cases like this the "remedy" on a first hearing has tended to be twofold: - 1/ to urge better more detailed consensus seeking as an initiative, and 2/ to deal with specific users who impede it. (If needed, more general restrictions have also been applied if there is widespread disruptive editing.) The former can be begun already to save time, the latter can be handled by administrators being slightly more forceful about conduct on the consensus seeking pages than usual. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Merridew

Initiated by -- Cat chi? 19:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the reques
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by White Cat

The user to date had 3 known accounts. And a suspected 4th one (hence this case)

The relevant cases are (a select list for practical purposes)

Thats 1 RFC, 5 Checkuser cases, and 2 rfars. I feel I have exhausted all forms of dispute resolution and would prefer not to get indulged in it any more for this user. I promised myself not to file another one but I am here given the community apathy.

Now in all fairness Davenbelle and Moby Dick were never confirmed to be sockpuppets because the checkuser logs expired before a check was run on Moby Dick. But both Davenbelle, Moby Dick edit from the same geographic region, Bali, Indonesia. Arbcom treated Moby Dick and Davenbelle like the same person on the Moby Dick RfAr. Diyarbakir also "coincidentally" edited from Bali, Indonesia as well as the same computer as Moby Dick. Moby Dick and his confirmed sockpuppet Diyarbakir had been banned indefinitely for "an impressive amount of stalking".

The conduct of Moby Dick can be summarized as:

I suspect User:Jack Merridew, who is confirmed to edit from Bali Indonesia, may be a sockpuppet of Davenbelle based on the evidence I presented in the following case: WP:RFAR/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence/by White Cat#Real identity of Jack Merridew: Could it be Davenbelle/Moby Dick

This latest edit was over my recent attempted move of the gallery at Depiction of Jesus to commons on 11:02, 10 March 2008. There was one image (Image:Divine_Mercy_(Adolf_Hyla_painting)2007-08-16.jpg) licensed under fair-use in the gallery which was not commons compatible so I did not carry it to commons and removed it from the gallery of images. I further removed the fair use rationale from the image description page as it was no longer needed on 10:58, 10 March 2008. Now Jack Merridew reported my edits to User:Johnbod on 11:32, 10 March 2008. That is 34 minutes after I edited the image and 30 minutes after I edited the article.

-- Cat chi? 19:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User seems to be aware of any talk page I edit. -- Cat chi? 12:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

To put it graphically:

Past - 18 Dec 19 Dec 2006 - 7 Mar 2007 8 - 26 March 27 March 28 March - 8 April 9 April - 10 April 11 - 19 April 20 - 22 April 23 April 24 - 25 April 26 April - 2 May 3 - 7 May 8 May - Present
Moby Dick Edits 103 days Edits 38 days Moby Dick block discussion Blocked
Diyarbakir* Edits 41 days Edits 12 days Edits 2 days
Jack Merridew Not registered Edits 18 days Edits
  • The above graph may fool you to think that Moby Dick had made edits between 26 April - 2 May. However Moby Dick had made his last edit on 10 April from the account User:Diyarbakir. The marked time frame is community discussion which Moby Dick did not take part from a known account.
  • Moby Dick did make a single edit from the account User:Moby Dick on 27 March 2007 which was the first one from that account since 18 December 2006 and that was the last one ever from that account.
Response to statement by Tony Sidaway

Past case on Moby Dick had been completely ineffective in getting Moby Dick off of me. The ban of Diyarbakir and Moby Dick kept Davenbelle off of wikipedia for something like a week or less if Jack Merridew is ruled to be yet another sockpuppet. This would mean Davenbelle had been stalking me for a full three years in about 1.5 months it will be the anniversary of Moby Dick's indef block. I do not need to express my frustration in words I hope.

I am bringing this to arbcom rather than ani or arbcom enforcement because every person I have asked to date refused to even look at it. I could have named it "Davenbelle 2" but that felt like a movie title for some reason.

-- Cat chi? 19:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to comment by Sceptre

That would require me to have a level of faith in this community. I do not. The community had a consistent hostile attitude towards me any time I bring up "Davenbelle".

Also indefinitely blocking him alone is not an adequate way to get rid of Davenbelle as it has been the case time after another. Additional remedies may be warranted if I am right in my assertion that Jack Merridew is Davenbelle

-- Cat chi? 22:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Despite the claim of Arbitrator Kirill Lokshin

Checkuser has CONFIRMED Jack Merridew's geographic location to be compatible with Davenbelle. Kirill Lokshin's insistence on ignoring this simply baffles me.

-- Cat chi? 22:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to statement by Jack Merridew

It takes very little effort to notice this edit or these edits. I do not need to waste time and study your edits to notice them. Both cases are threads you should not even be aware of. It is a big wiki after all. While your presence on the ANI thread may have some other rational explanation (mere coincidence), your presence on User talk:Johnbod does not.

-- Cat chi? 19:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to statements claiming I have a vendetta or grudge against Jack Merridew (or anybody)

Such people with vendettas and/or grudges are unwelcome on wikipedia. Arbcom should accept this case and ban me indefinitely if such is the case. If that is not the case perhaps evidence can be analyzed and not dismissed without being given a second thought.

I also challenge such people. If they do not even find any of this evidence vaguely suspicious, perhaps they have an alternate rational explanation.

-- Cat chi? 11:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to rebuttal by Jéské
While my comment wasn't aimed at your post and instead more of the overall response by several parties, I apologize for the confusion. My motive behind this is not spite. I just want arbitration committee to review the conduct of a user whom I am convinced is a sockpuppet of an indef banned User:Davenbelle who to date had two sockpuppets (User:Moby Dick, User:Diyarbakir) strictly to harass me and on occasion several others.
Since blocking him indefinitely has proved to be inefficient in maintaining the ban placed on Davenbelle, I seek arbcom to perhaps add remedies - not sure what they can be. My discussion with FayssalF gave me the understanding that such an issue would need to be discussed among arbitrators.
-- Cat chi? 12:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jack Merridew

I was asked by White Cat to look at this; thing is, I've seen this before, everyone has. He's been trucking this all over the wiki for a month. Arbitrators, please see your talk pages. He makes a great fuss over his having sussed-out my IP and seems to view Bali as not much different than when Margaret Mead reported on it.

He claims I stalk him, but his so-called evidence implies a study of every edit I make. He has been utterly hostile towards me ever since the review of the Oh My Goddess episodes and my redirection of them. He made no effort at all to add sources to any of those articles or in anyway acknowledge any issue; as if they were perfect — shrines to his fandom. He holds a grudge over this issue; this would seem to be his sole reason for involving himself in the TV E&C cases.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow
This, from yesterday, includes a link to this, from 2 and a half years ago, which gives this.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Technically, aren't you just asking for a new motion in the old case identifying Jack Merridew as the old banned sock artist? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient. sceptre. White Cat has suffered long and proven harassment in the past. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sceptre

Personally, I think this is trying to inflame the Episodes and Characters dispute, contrary to the arbitration committee's instructions. The proper venue is suspected sock puppets, not requests for arbitration. Will (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Black Kite

Not the place for this; we have RFCU and SSP for a reason. Stop wasting people's time, please. Black Kite 00:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Eusebeus

Agree with the above. Take this to RFCU and SSP. If that fails to provide substantiation (as I believe is the case), then this frivolous and disputatious action is grounds for an RFC against WhiteCat with a view to sanction for a proven pattern of obsessive disruptiveness and non-constructive editing. Wikipedia is a poorer place for tolerating this kind of thing and it drives good editors away. Eusebeus (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Ned Scott

Very inappropriate, very paranoid. -- Ned Scott 09:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Colonel Warden

I don't know anything about the White Cat matter but had a clash with Jack Merridew the other day which I had to walk away from. He exhibits a wide range of problem behaviours - bad language, stalking, threats and disruptive edits. If he encounters another editor who is equally willful, then one should expect trouble. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jéské

While I know nothing of White Cat or his behavior, I will note that Merridew, during the E&C 2 case, was being targeted by the same garbage that has been targeting User:J Milburn , the various admin noticeboards, and myself as of late (i.e. mass-spammed death threats and general trolling) and was being WikiStalked (see this RFCU) because he was working on tagging articles related to Dungeons & Dragons.

However,looking at this request right now, while I question the fact that Merridew has any other accounts other than what he's already known to have, White Cat's statement certainly gives me pause. Bury the hatchet, White Cat. For your sake, Wikipedia's sake, and the sake of the two E&C ArbComm cases you've been involved in, throw your whetstone out. This reads less like an ArbComm request and more like a vendetta. -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 04:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal to White Cat's response to statements about him having a vendetta

I am not suggesting you have a vendetta; far from it. What I'm saying is that this arbitration request appears to be motivated less by the common good and more from spite. -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 18:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Pixelface

I have to disagree with the views of Sceptre, Black Kite, Eusebeus, Ned Scott, and Jéské Couriano. An arbitrator suggested White Cat make a request for arbitration and I have no reason to question White Cat's request. White Cat suspected Jack Merridew was Davenbelle even before a checkuser said that Jack Merridew and Davenbelle are located in the same city. White Cat is either good at pissing off people in Indonesia who edit the English-language Wikipedia and who like to follow editors around or White Cat is dealing with another sock. If it's another sock, White Cat has already tried multiple steps in dispute resolution. Although...two recent arbitration cases make me think that White Cat may get a quicker (and perhaps more satisfactory) response with WP:SSP.

Casliber suggested a request for checkuser of all involved parties in the recently closed Episodes and characters 2 case. Oddly, the other day Jack Merridew contacted Casliber[28], and also contacted me[29] out of the blue with a message from the "Work Assignments Committee". I believe this was a joke related to a proposal Casliber made in the workshop of that case. I don't know why Jack Merridew contacted me in particular. I did suggest Jack Merridew be listed as an involved party in the E&C2 case.

During the E&C2 case, I believe Jack Merridew followed me around to various AFDs and I believe that editor has engaged in wikistalking. I suppose one could make a request to amend the E&C2 case if Jack Merridew is following E&C2 parties around. Jack Merridew has recently been edit-warring [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] over an article I mentioned in my evidence in the E&C2 case, King Dedede. That article was recently protected by Black Kite, an involved party of the E&C2 case. While Jack Merridew was never officially listed as an involved party, the recent behavior by that editor could be seen as a violation of the remedy that said "the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute." --Pixelface (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Casliber

The recent TV episodes Arbitration and events over the several months leading up to it reminded me of trench warfare with sides drawn up and opinions polarised among many editors (me included), many of whom are offering opinions here above. We are now at a situation where this has been aired over quite a few weeks and sounds plausible enough from what I have read, though I haven't gone through it in a huge amount of detail. This needs to be settled once and for all somehow. The key question is, can a simple checkuser or SSP wade through evidence of this length and age? If Jack Merridew is innocent, then this suspicion needs to be dispelled conclusively, likewise if otherwise. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by EconomicsGuy

I think Pixelface sums it up very nicely but in addition to that I would like the arbitrators to consider that this isn't just about the episodes dispute. Jack Merridew has in the past had a tendency to show up at disputes involving White Cat without any reason to do so and as demonstrated here without any intentions of trying to calm down the situation. The arbitrators have in the past considered complex cases involving suspected sockpuppets where the community was unable to resolve the dispute due to the complexity and age of the dispute and evidence (SevenOfDiamonds). I think., by now, it is safe to say that this will not go away as a result of any community intervention and as such I would urge the arbitrators to accept this to settle the matter once and for all. Community action will not work here and this is why we have you to make final decisions in complex cases. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Reject; I see no evidence that any prior steps in either the dispute resolution process or the sockpuppet identification process have ocurred with regard to Jack. The Committee is not the first stop for handling vague suspicions of sockpuppetry. Kirill 22:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, per Kirill. I agree with Sceptre's suggestion on vague accusations, above. James F. (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept as per my discussion with White Cat. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. I agree that other simpler methods of remedying this complaint should be pursued. FloNight ♣♣♣ 16:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept to seek a resolution to this issue one way or the other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcut

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

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

Statement by Daniel

I ask that the Committee consider amending the above case; in particular remedy one, "PHG restricted", which was passed uncontested and currently reads:

PHG (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to medieval or ancient history for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.

I propose to make the simple change of "articles" to "pages". Although this may seem minute to the point of being redundant and a waste of time, I respectfully request that the Committee considers the comments made at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PHG's archived articles, and also respectfully ask whether Committee members feel that the current remedy is effective in dealing with this and similar situations in the future.

Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Sam

The remedy explicitly allows him to edit talk pages, so he would not be restricted in that way. Given the history of PHG, it is (in my opinion) fair to assume that should these articles be deleted, he will simply create more on different topics and claim that the MfD does not mandate a G4 deletion as the text and subject matter is different, even if the disruption is the same in everything but subpage title. I feel there is little doubt the MfD will be closed as delete.

Furthermore, on the specific issue of userpages, I believe that findings of fact such as:

  • "PHG has cited scholarly books and articles for propositions that the cited works do not fairly support",
  • "PHG has isolated on a particular statement or quotation within a work and taken it out of context without fairly presenting the viewpoint of the source taken as a whole",
  • "[R]eview of several of PHG's sourced edits versus the content of the original sources confirms that several sources have been cited in a misleading or distorted fashion", and
  • "[PHG] has often failed to acknowledge any legitimacy to the concerns raised about his edits"

...suggest PHG will continue to edit medieval history userspace copies in a manner which contradicts the userspace policy, which states that subpages "[are] not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia", as well as providing that "pages kept in userspace should not be designed to functionally substitute for articles or Wikipedia space pages" (emphasis mine). I believe a simple modification to the restriction will stop said disruption.

Respectfully, Daniel (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

Original research is not welcome on Wikipedia. PHG has been asked not to edit certain topics because he has been unable to comply with this requirement for whatever reason. If PHG is writing about these same topics in userspace, there is a high probability that it is original research. We should not be required to spend even more volunteer time to debug each incident. There is no reason for an editor to compile original research in userspace, and Wikipedia is not a hosting provider. PHG should be warned that this activity is not allowed, and that if continued, the result will be a block. Jehochman Talk 12:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elonka

I see what Daniel is getting at here, and I support it, but think that it could be even stronger. The problem as I see it isn't just that PHG is continuing to skate the edge of his restrictions, but that he has never indicated, even once, an acknowledgement that he understood what he did wrong.

This is actually symptomatic of a larger problem which I see with the way that the Wikipedia culture implements blocks. And I am speaking here as a professional online community manager, who has been doing this for 18 years. In a nutshell: When someone is disruptive within a community, and they are blocked repeatedly, you shouldn't keep letting them back in, unless the individual acknowledges that they understood what they did wrong, and further, that they are capable of promising that they're going to do better. Otherwise we are just setting ourselves up with a revolving door, where a disruptive editor just continues to disrupt. It is reasonable to give everyone a free pass for their first (and maybe second) block. But we should follow a three-strike rule. Three problems, and still no indication that the editor is going to do better, then they should just be "out".

PHG is a classic example of the problem. Even during his most recent block, he continues to argue with FT2, he continues to proclaim his innocence (see User talk:PHG#Block). Every indicator that I have seen from PHG, says that he is just going to continue with problematic behavior, that he is going to keep repeating the same arguments, and that he is going to keep on doing effectively the same things that led to the ArbCom case in the first place. In my opinion, what needs to be done is that he needs to be blocked indefinitely, until he is able to make a promise that he is going to do better. If he can't do that, then don't let him back. We've all got better things to do with our time, than to keep cleaning up after him. I do understand the desire to "hope for reform," but it has to be a reasonable hope. If PHG gave his word that he was going to try to reform, sure, I could have hope too. But he has not. --Elonka 19:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I'm not sure that a change is required. The MfD is ongoing and I will not prejudge it, but if it results in the userspace pages being deleted then recreation would be barred anyway. If it does not, then PHG can continue to attempt to bring his userspace pages in line with NPOV and other policies and then draw attention on talk pages. I do not see the disruption on talk pages which needs to be tackled by banning PHG from them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The case closed less than a week ago. I tried to be precise in the wording of the decision in recognizing that the primary (though not sole) issue with PHG's editing was the introduction of questionable mainspace content, so the remedy was focused primarily on that issue as well. If it proves necessary, I am not averse to expanding the remedy, but I would rather do so on the basis of more than a few days' experience in the immediate aftermath of the decision. For what it is worth, I do not see PHG's participation in the MfD as especially problematic, but I trust that he will be guided by the outcome of that discussion and not demand (for example) that he be allowed to keep created new userspace pages and requiring new MfD's if this MfD closes with a delete result. I am more troubled by his creating new articles on the borderline of the areas from which he is restricted from editing in mainspace and I hope he will be mindful of the overall intent of the committee's decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this stage, decline. The decision was not arbitrary. PHG has made good contributions in some areas. Unfortunately he is also highly tendentious in others and while some of his editing is good, a significant part is unusable (and he doesn't seem to recognize this fully). The remedy for article space is to remove the ability to disrupt completely. But the remedy for other spaces does not need to be so blunt. Provided he can contribute usefully, his actions on talk pages are not problematic beyond management. For example, they can be ignored if they prove unhelpful. PHG is also under a remedy that clarifies certain kinds of conduct are disruptive, if they involve failure to acknowledge consensus, which is unusually not stated as a principle but as a remedy whose repeated breach is actually actionable. If PHG were to act in a disruptive manner, for example by creating fork pages, or adding bulk text to talk pages without fair cause, or otherwise, then there are normal administrative tools and approaches able to handle this. (As with most Wikipedia dispute resolution we don't use them unless there is good cause.) When I blocked PHG recently, I reviewed his talk page contributions and found some were acceptable, some were problematic; there was a concern but not yet actionable. If time passes and PHG continues to try and raise topics on which the community has deemed his editing unhelpful then a final warning that he would be blocked if he continues, then warnings and Remedy 4 would be the way to go, via usual admin tools and WP:TE/WP:DISRUPT/WP:CONSENSUS (and possibly WP:GAME/WP:POINT/WP:AE if applicable). I decline therefore not because it's not a concern, but because actually the community already has all it needs to fairly handle it, if/when it were to become intolerable. For an example of PHG being notified on his conduct, see User talk:PHG#Block. We should allow a degree of patience, but that's not without limit. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the reasons behind article space restrictions (not banning) is a hope of a reform. Restricting users from talk pages would lead nowhere unless there is disruption of course. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motions and voting

Request for clarification: Mantanmoreland

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

Notifications
[35][36][37][38]

Statement by Jehochman

We have incipient wheel warring and widespread controversy over sock puppetry blocks and tags that were applied to User:Samiharris and User:Mantanmoreland. This needs to stop immediately. Please state clearly whether sock tags and sock blocks may be applied to these accounts, or not. (I believe that there is a community consensus to do so, as established by the discussion on WP:AN, but some uninvolved administrator can make a final determination.) Some users feel that the arbitration case precludes community action. Please answer "yes" or "no" as to whether the community can act by consensus in this matter. Jehochman Talk 13:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has asserted that there was a consensus to community ban. Coren had blocked for sock puppetry, based on a strong consensus demonstrated multiple times that there was blockable sock puppetry. It is possible for a user to be blocked but not banned. We really need to unscrew Wikipedia:Banning policy and Wikipedia:Community sanction because until we agree on what these things mean and how they work, we will continue to suffer unnecessary drama. Jehochman Talk 14:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this request has nothing to do with a community ban. I agree completely that there is no community ban, due to the very high requirement we have for community banning that gives every administrator veto power. Assuming for the sake of argument that the community decides there has been abusive sock puppetry, can an uninvolved administrator tag and block the accounts, or does the arbitration decision preclude that? I am not asking if this is a wise thing to do. I am asking, whether you prohibit it. Jehochman Talk 14:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, if you are going to cite number of votes, please tell us also how many supported the block. Jehochman Talk 14:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment

Sorry for starting this before the case even closed, but the decision was being overtaken by events, potentially bad events. At least we have prevented wheel warring and been able to discuss this disagreement civilly. Thank you to all for that. Jehochman Talk 15:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coren

Indeed, I feel the primary point of contention at this point is whether the ArbCom declined to act on the allegations of sockpuppetry has precluded the community from doing so itself. Some administrators feel that the AC not having decided on a remedy on the allegations of sockpupettry means that they feel they are not warranted, whereas my reading (as the blocking admin) is that the AC left that decision to the community (who has shown very strong and unequivocal consensus). — Coren (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the "vote counters"; I count sufficient unequivocal supports for banning or blocking MM that, were this an RfA, it would pass. Consensus does not mean unanimity. — Coren (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lawrence Cohen

The Committee needs to say point blank if they endorse the ability and right of the community to follow through and make decisions above and beyond, or in place of Committee decisions by consensus. There seems to be a concerted effort on this case by a very, very small minority of long-time users, who seem hell-bent to not allow consensus to stand on this case. Consensus has been established repeatedly now across RFC, RFAR discussions, and AN three times, that Samiharris=Mantanmoreland. Consensus has now formed twice on AN that Mantanmoreland should be blocked--both before he was blocked, and after he was blocked with endorsements. How much more consensus is needed? Notarized statements from all of us, and photocopied drivers licenses mailed to the WMF office in San Fransisco? Does the community have the right to enforce consensus on a three-time caught sockmaster in this case? Lawrence § t/e 13:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Brad's Wikiconstitutional crisis conundrum

This very exact scenario actually came up last month I predicted this very situation here in discussion on this very case, in the archives. I predicted then basically that this scenario would happen if push came to shove. From Brad's own words last month:

Again, we have not discussed this aspect as a committee at all, but to me individually there is a clear difference between deciding not to take an action as an arbitrator, and deciding to affirmatively overrule that action if taken by the community. I would say that if a community ban were imposed on some user, the ArbCom overruled or reduced the ban, and then the next day it were proposed to reimpose it, then a problematic situation would arise. But that is not this case. Personally, I do think this committee's judgment is sufficiently valuable that if we vote that a particular set of remedies is sufficient, it might be in order to give those remedies a reasonable opportunity to work before reopening the discussion. That may be more a matter of community discretion than a fixed rule. The bottom line is there are no precedents on point that I can think of at this late hour; the Archtransit situation last week, which I mention above, is the closest. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We are now inches from this scenario. Is Mantanmoreland with his distinct lack of valuable article edits really so special and important that we will let this level of absurd disruption erupt over him, where this is possibly about to head? Is it that important to not give Bagley and Byrne any satisfaction? Lawrence § t/e 16:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a minor point, I thought I wrote "conundrum" rather than "crisis." Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Lawrence § t/e 17:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doc

Wow, talk about beggering the question. I'm actually neutral on the facts/evidence, but whether there is a community consensus is disputed. There is significant objection from some experienced admins. There's a bunch of people that are saying that evidence that didn't compel arbcom is compelling. Well, obviously it isn't, or you'd have been compelled. When the community don't find something blatantly obvious, we send it to arbcom - that's the community's chosen mechanism for dealing with it. And arbcom decided what, if anything, to do. In this case, you decided to do nothing. Whilst that may be regrettable to some (perhaps even to me), that's where it is. We settle incessant debates by sending them to arbcom - that's *final* step in dispute resolution and the alternative to endless argument or wheel warring. Any other way lies chaos, "votes for banning" and lynch-law. In another case, if the mob don't like an arbcom decision, can they take a vote to overturn it? Any community discussion is not the whole community, and has the potential to be influenced by good organisation and loud shouting (it may not be thoughtful, and may not be representative), I contend that the 15 thoughtful people elected after careful consideration, whilst they may be wrong, are far more likely to represent the voice and sanity of the community than a AN thread. Arbitration may not be the final word "for ever and ever amen", but it needs to have some degree of finality if it is really to function as the last part of the deletion process. What's the alternative?

Statement by Theresa Knott | The otter sank

I Pretty much agree with everything Doc says but would like to add that our standards for a community ban has always been that once blocked no admin was willing to unblock. In this case the user was blocked before the ban discussion had finished yet apperently that was merely a block not the ban itself. Then accusations of wheel warring fly once Doc undoes this block. I'm sorry but that isn't on. If someone is willing to undo a block then there is no concensus for the ban! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sam Korn

The claim that there is consensus for this banning requires a radically new definition of consensus. When multiple respected users oppose an action of this magnitude (and there can be no doubt that banning is a big deal), there is not consensus. We do not do votes for banning. We do not have some numerical system by which we determine who is to be banned, as we do to an extent at RfA. We have a system for sorting out banning in complicated cases: it's called the Arbitration Committee. The block of Mantanmoreland is not justified or permitted by some arbitrary number of people supporting it on ANI. There must be outstanding support. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree entirely with Lar about banning SamiHarris for sock abuse and don't think there is a great deal of opposition to this. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, as Daveh4h has completely misread my above comment: when there are several established users who advocate against a course of action, then it is inappropriate to find "consensus". It isn't some balance of "these guys have so many Respected Editors, these guys have so many Reasonably Respected Editors, how do they quantitatively balance out?" I did not say that people who want MM banned are not respected users. I quite honestly don't know how you got that impression. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SlimVirgin

Sixteen administrators, including two bureaucrats, and another two editors in good standing, have objected on WP:AN to the block, so there is clearly no consensus for it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Jay*Jay

Well, I suspect this is a first for ArbCom - the need for a clarification before the case is even closed. I want to endorse a couple of the comments above - I think the talk pages of the case have made it abundantly clear that some ArbCom members would like to have gone further; others believe that enough has been done and the rest can be cleaned up by the community; others think that sock puppetry has not been established. Without commenting on who believes what, the case pages seem to indicate that the committee's consensus was sock puppetry was likely, but that the community could act independently if it chose. This needs to be clarified, explicitly, and not by individual ArbCom members speaking. It needs a straight vote to endorse or not endorse a statement such as "The decision in Mantanmoreland does not preclude the community from establishing and acting on a consensus that further action should be taken. Nothing in this declaration limits any editor from appealing that action to the committee." If the committee chooses not to make the position in this area crystal clear, they should anticipate a further case in the immediate future, in my opinion.

I would also like to add a couple of observations on the statement from Doc, as several assertions should not be left unchallenged.

  • I'm actually neutral on the facts/evidence - this is clearly disputed - see the WP:AN discussion.
  • There's a bunch of people that are saying that evidence that didn't compel arbcom is compelling. Well, obviously it isn't, or you'd have been compelled. - compelled to come to a conclusion about the sock puppetry is one thing; compelled to act on that conclusion is quite another. The case pages indicate concerns about being definitive, and concerns to present a decision that all could support - such concerns may compell some not to act on their conclusion as to the evidence of sock puppetry.
  • Any community discussion is not the whole community, and has the potential to be influenced by good organisation and loud shouting (it may not be thoughtful, and may not be representative) - this exact argument can be used for tossing out consensus on any decision at AN, ANI, RfA, XfD, DRv, ...
  • I contend that the 15 thoughtful people elected after careful consideration, whilst they may be wrong, are far more likely to represent the voice and sanity of the community than a AN thread - but ArbCom have explicitly indicated there were other considerations here. Concern about legal exposure is one that may force them to move away from representing the "voice of the community". Further, ArbCom isn't elected to be a de facto government to decide issues for the community - the notion that, the community can't act once ArbCom is involved, is both offensive to the notion of consensus and dangerous. ArbCom are not the rulers and the community is not the ruled. There needs to be some rapid action to squash this notion.

Jay*Jay (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding comments from Morven:

Morven: The Arbitration Committee could not find a consensus to block in this case. Applying the unanimity version of "consensus", maybe not - but I still think a banning vote would pass, and that it wasn't held because of a desire to avoid showing the division within the committee (and particularly who would oppose). Certainly the allegations finding of fact makes it clear that a majority is at least willing to go as far as sock puppetry being likely (and I suspect this is an understatement, given the much stronger views that a couple of committee members have expressed). Then, there are jpgordon's comments on the 'majority' formulation of the finding: "what would it actually mean if I voted against it? That I didn't believe that the majority felt that way? (I'm pretty sure the majority feels that way.) Certainly the plurality feels that way." I think the majority were comfortable declaring "sock", but there was debate over banning and a couple of strong dissents - UC and JPG, to judge from the opposition to the sock puppetry principle - and that this is about preventing disclosure of any more information about the internal division.


Morven: Concern for legal exposure was NOT stated or discussed as a reason by any Arbitrator in public or as far as I know in private. Newyorkbrad, on the talk page of the proposed decision, talking about drafting (emphases added): I also reasoned that it would be highly undesirable to write anything in an "official decision of the Arbitration Committee" that was likely to be used, or misused, in the context of off-wiki disputes. Contrary to some speculation, I personally am not aware of any legal threats against Wikipedia from anyone involved in this matter, and no such threats influenced how I drafted the decision. On the other hand, given the real-world background to the on-wiki dispute, I did not desire through the decision itself to create evidence that could be used someday by any side in some other and very different kind of proceeding.

When the drafter of the decision states, on-wiki, that he considered the use of the decision in a legal case (and that is clearly the allusion here - and it was even clearer the second time he said this), it is clear that potential for litigation did get some consideration - maybe not litigation against the Wikimedia Founddation itself - but legal concerns played a role. Then, there is proposed principle 8: "Arbitration decisions should be read with these limitations in mind and should not be used, or misused ... [in any off-wiki] proceeding". No comment...


Morven: Distrust of the statistical methods used WAS discussed as a reason not to support a block. Only UC has made concerns about statistics clear - and on his talk page, not on the case pages, as far as I recall. There were a few vague comments made, but nothing with anything like the necessary detail to make addressing any concerns possible. I don't understand why questions like this were not put directly, so they could be addressed. Surely the committee members didn't want to avoid providing an opportunity for editors to address their concerns about the quality of the evidence?


Morven: We did not prohibit a block of MM but neither did we endorse it, thus the normal standards for a community ban apply. This matches previous statements from Newyorkbrad, and also FT2: "But the above case may indicate that non-mention is no bar to action if circumstances change, which is the main concern of this thread. (For avoidance of doubt, it's also not a bar to usual decision-making based upon usual norms and standards and such.)" Whilst we can't indefinitely block because the consensus standard is replaced by the absurd unanimity standard, we (the community) appear to be able to use consensus to ban (and thus block) for (say) a year, with a review to be conducted in 11 months to decide upon a renewal. Jay*Jay (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Gerard (talk)

  • Everything Doc glasgow says.
  • Also, would anyone be safe even being exonerated by the arbcom if enough of a lynch mob could be gathered?
  • Also, saying "it's wheel-warring to unblock because it isn't the community ban we wanted, it's just an unrighteous block" reeks of rules-lawyering - David Gerard (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie

There is a consensus for this. It's on the AN thread. Consensus doesn't mean unanimous. That's ridiculous. The vast majority of folks on the AN thread are in agreement that a sockpuppet master (whose been caught multiple times over several years, mind you) deserves to be blocked. This is pure obstructionism. The last refuge of scoundrels is no longer Patriotism, apparently, it's "Take it to ArbCom" instead.

The ArbCom was well aware of the fact that there was going to be a community effort, and specifically said things like "It wouldn't surprise me; given the nature and volume of the evidence, the community doesn't really need our help to make that decision." when asked if they thought a community ban would be affected. Instead of sorting this, we should be considering the wheel-war unblock WITHOUT the vast majority consensusm that existed in that thread, and without even attempting to discuss it with the neutral administrator who applied the block. SirFozzie (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to David Gerard) Once again, you show that you think you're above the community. First the IRC page thing (which you got dinged for), and now this. You'd be wise to stop referring to the vast majority of even UNINVOLVED folks on that discussion as a lynch mob, including the neutral administrator who applied the block. SirFozzie (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental statement by SirFozzie

I'd like to thank FT2 for spending a couple hours with me last night, trying to explain why ArbCom did what it did to tapdance around the core issue from the community, which is the link between Samiharris and Mantanmoreland. I've had time to think about it, and while I can't go into the arguments presented, I can say this. I can understand where ArbCom was coming from on this, but I do NOT agree with them.

I'm trying to do a little tapdancing around the issue of my own. But let me say this. ArbCom has chosen to view the off-WP consequences of this as much as they have for a reason. But that means they deprecate the core issue. That Mantnamoreland, nee Gary Weiss, has imported a real life, real world financial controversy onto Wikipedia, and should not be shielded from the consequences of his actions.

We are an encyclopedia. We have rules. If someone wants to come in and break the rules, they risk the consequences if their actions become known. ArbCom is trying to do no harm... but the harm is already done. I fully expect to see this in the press, quickly, and every caricature, every barb thrown at us will have been proven true. I'm disgusted with what this means for the encyclopedia anyone can edit. SirFozzie (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

There is obviously no urgency to block the Mantanmoreland account. It is under some of the most stringent socking remedies, with indefinite effect, and the most swingeing enforcement provisions I've ever seen, and is likely to be under permanent scrutiny. There is no justification for an immediate block. The block by Coren was reversed by Doc and discussion continues, which I think it the right thing. The possibility of a community ban, or an alternative community remedy, is being discussed and should be permitted to continue without prejudice. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that, from examining the edits of Mantanmoreland carefully, I find the suggestion that he imported a dispute into Wikipedia improbable. He certainly socked, but otherwise his edits put me in mind of a fellow who breaks into your home and doesn't take anything but fixes the microwave and replaces the toilet paper. If he's been pushing some agenda, it's far too subtle to register on my radar. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not quite on topic Statement by User:Rocksanddirt

The question is of double standards for some users v. others. If we continue to allow the double standards and not take action against them, the project suffers greatly. We enjoy our fantasy of equality here, but it doesn't ring true regarding mm/sh/wb/gw/pb/investors in their shorts. The committee can endorse equality of users or not through a clearly worded clarification or endorsement of one position on the community sanctions discusion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another off topic comment - Mackan79 appears to have been blocked yesterday for sounding like wb? Will we face the double standard on this issue or not? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lar

Most of what I wanted to say has been said. A key point is found what Matthew Brown says below, and the interpretation I make of it is that ArbCom did in fact remand this back to the community. I can find more specific diffs if it really matters. If we hold to the standard that a community ban means that not one admin is willing to overturn it, there is no justification for a community ban of both accounts. If we hold to the standard that a community ban means a consensus to ban, it's arguable... I don't want to shade over into votes for banning to be sure, but the numbers do indicate a lot of support, and also a minority, but fair number of opposes. I'd call it consensus, but perhaps others would not.

I have to say I find it hilarious (in a sad way) that this case got a request for clarification perhaps before it technically closed... (and maybe I jumped the gun starting the discussion by making a proposal, although it seemed a good idea at the time)

I'd also like to see the question of whether a block of Samiharris is a good idea separated out from the Community Ban part. An/Tony put forward that a block of Sami on sock grounds was a good idea, at one point. That seems prudent to me even failing to endorse the rest. ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Relata refero

  • Why is the block/unblock being discussed here? What do we expect ArbCom to do? It has been made quite clear on the proposed decision page that ArbCom does not intend to stand in the way of any future community action, which has always been the case.
  • On the subject of consensus/unblocking/"counting": Will SV, David Gerard, etc., etc. please note that blocking policy currently reads "uninvolved" adminstrators. SV, please feel free to update your figures till they comply with policy. DocG, please feel free to alter your statement till it complies with policy.
  • Morven, I note you said "consensus to block". I didn't know ArbCom was working on internal consensus these days, rather than the more normal majority voting. It certainly explains the wording of PFoF 2.1.
  • David: "being exonerated by the arbcom" - did not happen in this case; "if enough of a lynch mob could be gathered" - no, nobody ever was safe from that. Which is why people worried about private mailing lists and Other Controversial Locations for Off-Wiki Co-ordination.
  • Everyone please take a moment to go over their statements and check that they aren't talking about "ban" when they mean "indefblock". This includes Morven.
  • I'd rather that DocG not have stated a weak rationale when unblocking against (uninvolved) consensus, and even more that that weak rationale not be based on inaccurate facts. Not that that is relevant, and now Morven has pointed out that DocG was wrong in his assumptions.
  • Tony: your "examination" has been, at best, a little careless. This has been pointed out already. Note to self: resist the urge to make crack about "too subtle for me", resist it, resist it :)
  • Coren has pointed out that he was willing to unblock in the normal way if contacted, but he wasn't. If you want to talk about irregularity and consensus like a lot of policy-wonks, include that bit. Relata refero (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Neil

Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_of_Mantanmoreland_and_Samiharris.

  • Clear:
    • 31 firmly in favour of ban (Lar, Lawrence Cohen, SirFozzie, Jehochman, Naerii, Durova, Alanyst, Amerique, 82.19.1.139, R. Baley, Wizardman, WAS 4.250, Rocksanddirt, Krimpet, Mackan79, GRBerry, JoshuaZ, Sceptre, Hmwith, Noroton, Daveh4h, Achromatic, LessHeard vanU, MPerel, Crotalus horridus, Neil, Eleland, Pascal Tesson, Bigtimepeace, Cla68, Viridae)
    • 12 against (Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, Sam Korn, Theresa Knott, David Gerard, Doc Glasgow, JzG, IronDuke, AGK, Dmcdevit, Blueboy96, Wjscribe, Addhoc)
  • Others (7):
    • 1 comment that block may not solve issue (Kingturtle)
    • 2 prefer topic ban (Random832, MastCell)
    • 1 "wait and see" (Carcharoth)

Unfortunately, it's a flimsy consensus to indefinitely ban someone, even Mantanmoreland. Lar probably initiated the discussion too soon, Coren probably acted too soon in blocking, Doc Glasgow unblocking without discussion with Coren while warning that anyone who dared overturn him would be wheel-warring (simultaneously flouting policy with one hand while quoting it with the other) didn't help in calming things down. Neıl ☎ 15:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this take into account the people that endorsed after Coren blocked? Lawrence § t/e 16:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note for avoidance of doubt - Coren and Doc G have apparently now spoken completely amicably on this, and all's sorted out there, for anyone who wondered. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by daveh4h

  • Theresa knott says: I Pretty much agree with everything Doc says but would like to add that our standards for a community ban has always been that once blocked no admin was willing to unblock. That may be true. But I would guess, or hope, that the admin unblocking would have to attempt to get consensus for the unblock, as did the blocker.
  • Sam Korn says: When multiple respected users oppose an action of this magnitude (and there can be no doubt that banning is a big deal), there is not consensus Is that your hook now? People that are supporting a ban of MM aren't "respected" enough? Perhaps you should file an arbcom to rid the site of users that are not respected enough, then the community would be ran exactly to your liking!
  • Sam Korn says: We have a system for sorting out banning in complicated cases: it's called the Arbitration Committee. Yes, and it failed to act! You would know more about why than I, since you have access to the arbcom mailing list, but not for a minute do I believe that you do not see the huge pile of shit that the arbcom dumped into the community's lap. You realize that.
  • SlimVirgin says: Sixteen administrators, including two bureaucrats, and another two editors in good standing, have objected on WP:AN to the block, so there is clearly no consensus for it. This is an appeal to authority. Or is this a way of saying that the majority of people asking for a block are unimportant, since they do not have those permissions on a website? This argument carries zero weight with me, perhaps I am arrogant.
  • David Gerard says: Also, would anyone be safe even being exonerated by the arbcom if enough of a lynch mob could be gathered? As long as the arbcom decision does not radically go against community consensus, as it did here, I think they'll be ok. This is an unusual case and one that has been left to fester for two years. You know that this is a complex and unusual case; however, if you do not believe this is a complex case, then I get a better feel of where you are coming from with your comments. Please let us know if you think this is a simple case.

More on appeals to authority (respected users, admins, crats): How many different levels of consensus have to be acheived, now? Must we get a consensus among stewards to issue a block/ban now, too? Lar is one, maybe he can speak for steward consensus! Since two bureaucrats stating that they did not support a block/ban is carrying weight, then maybe my statement should read something like: Lar is a steward. Case closed. I'd at least like to pretend I'm a little bit intellectual honest, though. It is overall community consensus that matters. Remember, it was respected admins that protected MM and his socking in the first place. The community followed their judgment because we had no reason not to. They are respected users! This time we have an abundance of reason to not follow the judgment of certain respected users. There is no need to apply more weight to someone's opinion simply because they have an extra permission on a website--That's counter to the ideals that are set forth in this community. That a few respected users with a history of protecting MM are opposed to a ban of MM should not be surprising; moreover, it should not carry more weight than any other opinion--in fact, quite the contrary.

Dave, you're reading more into one comment above, than I think Sam intended. When he says for example "multiple respected users" he's more likely to be meaning "people with reputations for judgement" as opposed to "those with status". (Inevitably some of those with good judgement will also have been given additional trust by the community too.) Rewrite the words you quote: "A community ban is not a vote. When it is opposed by a significant number of users in good standing, then there is de facto doubt if it meets our norm for a community ban." FT2 (Talk | email) 18:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Random832

Since the discussion did not take the form of an "up/down" vote, it is unclear how many users are on each 'side', and various numbers are being advanced. Would those who think the numbers are relevant please enumerate which users you are interpreting as support or oppose, with diffs for each? I would like to also take this opportunity to explicitly state that my own remark was intended as neutral, and I am concerned that it may be being counted as an oppose. (EDIT: Based on Neil's analysis, I gather that I am indeed being counted among the "sixteen") —Random832 16:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there should also be some analysis of who opposed on solely process grounds, as compared to who opposed because they're not convinced of the evidence or because they don't think that MM's actions, even when they agree on their nature, were bannable. If no-one else does this analysis I am willing to do it tomorrow. —Random832 16:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amerique

I've got an idea. Instead of arguing over whether to block MM or not, why not edit WP:SOCK and WP:COI policies to allow sockpuppeting in pursuit of COI, as long as someone has a good reason for it, like say "off-site harassment," as this is the position the committee effectively stands for? Works for me, if the committee does not care that this guy double voted in the last ArbCom election nor that he socked to create a false appearance of consensus in the BADSITES case, why should any of us care about this anywhere else in the encyclopedia? Clearly, at this point, policy is way out of line with permissible practice as determined by the committee. Ameriquedialectics 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might benefit from reading and considering, rather than assuming a misrepresention of others' words and views this way. If you had read statements, you will find indications why this stance is taken... including assessment of norms for handling alleged (and even confirmed) abusive puppetry that suggest your concept of sock-issue handling is not in fact on track. Your points are each about COI/puppetry, but you haven't considered that our norm on these is much more usually that where possible and positive contributions may be made in other areas, we deal with the potentially abusive conduct going forward, and then let the editor edit if they wish subject to any needed restrictions related to the area of dispute, if there is a chance their other edits may yet be constructive. Your contention that somehow people "did not care", stated in a parodying superficial manner that WP:POINT calls "ineffective" and "designed to provoke", is grossly distorting of this, and an example of the kind of "more heat than light" so often referred to in this case as a major problem. Please don't in future. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carcharoth

For the record, my position was not one of support or oppose, other than to say that we should wait and see what happened (ie. give the arbcom remedies a chance). I would not have stood in the way of a community ban if that has been the result. I was also highly critical of the process and timescale, as well as one of Coren's blocking rationales.

  • The second blocking rationale - "the very magnitude of the drama above is the perfect illustration on how immensely and irremediably disruptive this editor has been, and how much strife he has caused" (as stated by User:Coren) - I strongly disagree with this. The day that we start to block merely because the community is having one of its periodic dramafests is the day that the community is finished as a coherent entity that can be respected and its decisions seen to have any worth outside that of mob rule. In any large community, there will always be disagreement and differences of opinion. That should not result in a general principle that 'drama in the community' = 'disruption by the editor being discussed'. That veers dangerously close to the often unprovable accusation of trolling. Stick to the facts and discuss those and come up with a process to reduce the drama and allow the community to express itself in a calm manner.
  • Process - Community ban discussions at AN are, at present, chaotic and poorly structured affairs. Please visit Wikipedia talk:Community sanction for discussion on how such community ban discussions could be better handled. For now, I'll repeat what I've said before:

    "I think the process of community banning could be improved a lot: (1) Clear start and end points and no closing early; (2) People declaring their interest and article and/or editor involvement (or uninvolvement) up front (ie. have they been involved with the editor before and how - anyone failing to declare this gets their comment discounted); (3) Clear presentation of the latest evidence and links to previous evidence; (4) Giving the editor in question a chance to defend themselves; (5) Such discussions not being a response to the "latest incident", and hence not decided in the "heat of the moment"."

    Things like "saying what alternatives are available and why they wouldn't work" are other possibilities. RfC is very structured. RfArb is very structured. Is there any reason why community ban discussions need to be so dramatic and ad-hoc?
  • Timescale - Compare the timescale of the three processes people have cited so far. The RfC opened at 16:52, 12 February 2008 and the last edit to date (which was also still part of the discussion there) has been 03:43, 16 February 2008. That is over four days of discussion. The RfArb opened at 22:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC) and will effectively close at 11:49, 13 March 2008. That is nearly a full month of discussion. This thread was opened by Lar at 17:13, 12 March 2008, and Coren blocked at 03:05, 13 March 2008 (I know, a block not a ban, but still). That is just under 10 hours of discussion before the block was placed (though discussion appears to be ongoing). I think allowing only 10 hours for the discussion, however long or heated or drama-filled, is a travesty of process.

Apologies for importing great chunks from the AN thread, but that pretty much sums up what I have to say on this matter. Carcharoth (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cool Hand Luke

It's suggested that ArbCom "exonerated" these users, but they did nothing of the sort. This confusion is precisely why I asked for an explicit finding that the community is free to decide. If the Committee has any interest in quelling the drama, they would take this opportunity to decide this once and for all. I will probably respect any decision they render.

Remember, ArbCom is the path of least drama. And if you actually do "exonerate" them, that's fine. It lets users make an informed decision about whether they want to be part of this project.

Otherwise, ArbCom should quickly reaffirm that this case is in the community's hands. Cool Hand Luke 20:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony claims that David Gerard only hypothetically said that ArbCom might exonerate people in the future. If that's the case, then I wonder why Gerard would want to bring it up in a case where ArbCom did not exonerate anyone. Cool Hand Luke 21:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

Whether or not the idea of running a community ban discussion was endorsed by the entire Committee, it was suggested by members of the Committee on a proposed decision talk page. Those individuals offered the Archtransit precedent and interested editors discussed the matter with them there. Lar's proposed ban was not a farfetched interpretation of some passing comment. In fact, no member of the Committee objected to the idea until a ban discussion was already underway.

This was not well done. It raises doubts about how closely the Committee members read arbitration talk pages. Whether or not the Committee alters any part of its decision here, the ban discussion also demonstrates that the consensus of the Committee is seriously out of step with the views of the community. This is not the only recent occasion when the Committee's own actions revealed such a discordance. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman, the Committee moved to voting twelve hours after the case opened and then postponed its decision for a month to run a user conduct RFC on an administrator. Although the RFC was run on the most prejudicial of terms--with an active desysopping proposal moving toward approval--the community provided more than enough support for the sysop in question to reinstate him immediately at RFA. The only effect that input had upon the case outcome was that the Committee retained him under its own control when it went ahead and desysopped him anyway. Rather than submit to that, he exercised his right to vanish...and the whole case had been undertaken for the sake of an account that had less than 50 edits. This was the worst of several recent cases that were not conducted well.

Being an arbitrator means making tough decisions that displease people. That's the nature of the beast and the Committee is entrusted with considerable powers and autonomy so that its members can act without fear of retaliation. Yet the Committee has been inviting demonstrations of community opinion that show just how unpopular its own choices are. Today an editor in good standing invited me to review a draft RFC on the arbitration committee. To see that idea seriously entertained should give pause. DurovaCharge! 23:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LessHeard vanU

I would request that clarification is given to the wording of WP:BAN#Decision to ban - Pt.1 as invoked by both David Gerard and Doc glasgow in (potential) unblocking (putting aside that Coren blocked with a rationale that did not invoke community ban criteria) in that the wording "propose an unblock" specifies an intent and not the action, and that by unblocking that a violation of WP:WHEEL may have occurred - albeit in good faith. This may not be the correct venue, but also clarification that in the matter of a community ban being in place that the unblock proposal itself requires consensus before being enacted may be useful; even as part of notes and comments rather than any decision on the other matters. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re Consensus; as mentioned, it is not a vote count - it is a determination as to which arguments carry the most weight and best reflect policy and practice. Many of the opposers cite the apparent lack of agreement at ArbCom to impose a block/ban as reason enough for the community not to "usurp" that decision. Plus, in the absence of good precedent as well as reference to policy/guideline it seems that those opposed to a ban can only refer to the experience of those so inclined to oppose. I have yet to be convinced that consensus has not been reached, and that the opposes are based either in a misunderstanding of ArbCom's position regarding a block/ban or simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT couched in a spurious appeal to authority. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

As I see it:

  1. The Arbitration Committee could not find a consensus to block in this case.
  2. The reasons were varied.
  3. Concern for legal exposure was NOT stated or discussed as a reason by any Arbitrator in public or as far as I know in private
  4. Distrust of the statistical methods used WAS discussed as a reason not to support a block
  5. We did not prohibit a block of MM but neither did we endorse it, thus the normal standards for a community ban apply
  6. The convention is that a community ban does not hold if there is sufficient dissent that a single administrator is willing to perform an unblock, which has occurred.
  7. Claims that the block had consensus don't hold water when approx. a dozen admins have opposed it.

(I may add more to this later, but that's my current opinions.) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long post
First thoughts

This was always going to be a controversial case. There were always going to be people uncontent, and here's what some forget: dispute handling is not a decision process based on popularity alone. If it were, then we could all have a happy-happy vote and be done. No. Arbcom exists in large part, because there are sometimes voices that will not listen to a more calm perspective, and believe only 1/ nuking or 2/ ignoring "the problem as they see it", solves it. There are many voices saying "ban these users" - that's a given. With deep respect, I have to put it simply. A few users' posts have at times come across somewhat as a demand not only to ban the user/s concerned, but equally, to damn or accuse anyone who dares thinks otherwise.

No. That is not how we do it here. From where a number of others see this, a number of users are risking presenting themselves as hot headed and over reactive in this, and not considering (or wishing to consider) the change of circumstances that a ruling like this creates. They are treating this almost as if we were back in 2006/07 and no arb case had been held. They would benefit from slowing down. Traditionally and factually, Arbcom is de facto the end of the line for problematic editing from editors brought to its attention. (Too much attention, too much light, end of line for most problems.) In fact, stridency to the point of disruption, as some have done, is precisely what has made the entire case so difficult in the past. More than one person has said that those shouting were their own worst enemies. They were, in my view, 100% right in that assessment.

We have never run Wikipedia by emotionally drive heat. This was a block to obtain good conduct in the presence of strong AN debate, although some sought to build it into a ban. However both of these conflicted with an incipient Arbitration view. Had we felt a ban was needed, we are more than able to rule one, and as a Committee, we do so regularly. In this case, complete prevention was likely achievable by lesser means, and it is a norm of Wikipedia dispute resolution and has been for years not to use more force than necessary to obtain good conduct.

The block was clearly by an uninvolved admin in good faith trying to best judge a heated area that had enveloped the whole community, and which absent an Arbitration case would have probably been useful. The view backing a block, or a conversion to a ban, was communally supported by a significant number, but also contested by a significant number of well respected users, and lesser measures were already in place to deal with the issue requiring an indef block; hence Doc G's unblock was also done correctly. I note in this context, that we only recently (CSN) had an MFD to kill off the growing edge of "vote driven bans" as a direction we did not want to go in.

In this case, a number of users who are 1/ voted by the community, and are 2/ trusted to examine the most complex cases and 3/ to examine past cases where significant information was considered, spent a lot of time, and concluded effectively just the same day as to appropriate measures. Unfortunately a number of people looked to Arbitration not for "the" verdict, but for "their" verdict. That is never an excuse. In every Arbitration case, there will be some who heatedly, angrily, confusedly, indignantly, feel it must have gone their way, and wax heated when it does not give them everything they hoped for.

The case went to Arbitration, a lot of people don't like the decision or see it as a lack of firm statement. But if dispute resolution is to work, people need to learn to live with decisions they don't like, including that sometimes, the better question is not "who is wrong" so much as "what protection is needed".

I have significant respect for the people shouting, as individuals, and for their concerns. SirFozzie and I have spoken on more than a few occasions, with never a dispute, and have done so last night and today. But this anger has to end. The aim of arbitration is to address the issue, and believed or not, the issue is actually addressed. None of the parties or their supporters or opponents is going to get a golden medal of who was right, who was wrong; we can all drop it and get back to content and normal stuff. The articles warred over will be watched by many, as will the parties, and any suspect new editors.

Those who clamored endlessly here, are not, as they might imagine, heroes or wiki-vigilantes. They actually got in the way and disrupted, and in my own opinion, over reacted badly. They showed a gross misunderstanding of the very basics. We are an encyclopedia... and we do not act as was done.

Further to the point, in most cases where puppetry is alleged, the remedy is traditionally to remove the ability to engage in concerning behavior, and then leave the user with the chance to show their intentions. This has been the case in numerous instances where socking was effectively considered proven, not merely alleged. Such users routinely have had as recourse, their actions restricted -- and then been allowed to edit as normal to a high standard if they choose. A ban is not the norm, unless there is a lot more than just sockpuppetry at issue. Even double (or more) !voting has been allowed to fall into the past in other cases. If the user is a sysop, the adminship is usually revoked, is the other result. Beyond that, we let them show how they will act subsequently. If it's unrepentant, then the end of the line is inevitable. But we let them choose to return to the community in good faith, or show their intentions by editing. Their choice after arbitration.

Specific comments
  1. Blocks and bans exist mostly to protect the project going forward. (Exception: It is rare that a ban is placed for gross breach of trust, and when this has been done it is usually an arbcom action and/or very high level of consensus.) In this case it is my view that recent case decisions mean there is little risk to protect the project against.
  2. The community can and does act on its own. Witness Archtransit. However in that case it was made clear that the admin tools were being withdrawn, but that no further remedy was proposed to deal with the puppetry. In this matter however the driving force is heat, not light. Not one person has shown that there is a real risk of editing abuse going forward, and a cold hard look at the remedies, niche focus of the disputants, and communal awareness of the matter, will show that indeed, there probably is not. Further, when the senior dispute resolution panel has decided certain measures are likely to be sufficient, it is inappropriate for even established users to act in a way that does not respect that.
  3. Samiharris - Samiharris has been handled exactly as any other party who ceases editing before the case on what appears to be a permanent basis. We often address them if/when they return to edit, and in fact have done so in cases far more egregious than this. We also at times block, and at times do not block, accounts where puppetry is possible/has some evidence/suggestive. Both are communal norms, so I am not going to give any view on this, except, ensure what is done is appropriate and fairly considered. (As an aside, note that a block would have negligible effect: SH's sole edits were via a proxy, which is independently blocked anyway I hope. But then again we know the areas of contention anyhow.)
  4. Mantanmoreland - Both block and unblock were within communal norms; Coren confirms the block was to achieve good conduct of a communally suspected repeat puppeteer (a proper purpose) and would have been removed once assurances on future conduct were received. But in this case, specific remedies had already been provided for any untoward future conduct (and the block was also disputed by other users), making the need for this a bit redundant.
  5. Tagging is probably unnecessary, and possibly provocative. Anyone who needs to know, knows already. There can be little doubt of that. A simple tag on SH's page "this is a suspected sock of..." might give vindication and rewarding feelings to some, but is actually pretty pointless really at this time. Feel free to edit war over it if needed. Usual sanctions probably apply.
  6. I note that the blocks, and unblocks, were both done by relatively uninvolved admins. I am profoundly glad that this norm was followed, note the two admins concerned are both amicable to each other, and I glad that if any admins were to have acted, they were relatively uninvolved ones. Thank you to those who were involved, but held back. You did a good job there.
  7. We don't run Wikipedia and especially, its sanction mechanisms, based on "I think that user is bad". We run it based on users' assessment of their disruption to the project going forward. We don't whip up heated emotional dramas around things, and I urge those who are persistently complicit in doing so, to consider desisting ("more light than heat"). The same names often keep coming up in this context.

Apologies for the tone. The user comments by some are genuine and emotive -- but as I see it, a number of views are also misdirected and misconceived. That needs saying and I lack the certainty that saying it tactfully will be heard. If anyone feels I have spoken wrongly of them though, please contact me, and I'll be glad to discuss. Specific questions raised I'll answer on the talk page in a bit.

FT2 (Talk | email) 16:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(And note, there are some differences in perception between Arbitrators when it comes to the question of a site ban. Arbitrators, including myself, often speak individually as well as "as a committee" and are not shy to state personal views if they differ. Hence users will see different "takes" on this. That said, what we did agree on was that a topic ban was appropriate in our decision, but a site ban was -at this time anyhow - not.) FT2 (Talk | email) 16:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I will try to say little, because there is so much that could be said. We have conflicting precedents regarding the threshold for community bans, as well as for how often administrators may undo one another's actions. The weight of the discussion on WP:AN suggests that a solid majority of participants support an indefinite block on both the Mantanmoreland and Samiharris accounts, but that there is enough dissension that the ordinary standards for a community ban have not been satisfied. Normally, administrators should not unblock against consensus, but it can be argued that unblocking to reflect dissent from a community ban is appropriate—at which point, if others support a ban, the matter can generally be brought before the Arbitration Committee—but here the case has already been here, and produced a decision regarded by some as insufficient, leading to the AN discussion in the first place. As the principal drafter of the nuanced decision that is now being found inadequate by many, I obviously have mixed feelings about every aspect of the matter: I thought the proposed decision was a good one, and was strengthened by remedies added more recently, and frankly I think that in writing decisions I generally know what I am doing and am entitled to a presumption to that effect, and I also would not want to devalue the deliberative process of this committee—but I am not a tribune, and I as a new editor once myself got a plurality of arbitrators to vote to reverse a remedy when I found it to be unjust, and I have no interest in shoving my personal opinions, even when joined by up to 14 colleagues, down an unwilling community's throat; and yet, the community speaks here not with one but with a multitude of voices; through a majority, but not with unanimity, nor even near-unanimity. We have here a more than a bit of a wikiconstitutional conundrum, which bids fair to rise above the level of attention to which the subject of the case should be entitled, and one that should be approached slowly and cautiously by all concerned to minimize the destructive impact of the tensions that have already occurred. While I and my colleagues and all of us ponder how it would be best to proceed, I would refer all concerned to Mantanmoreland's comments on his user talk page today, for whatever they might be worth, and I would urge him, if he has any additional information or statement to offer regarding any aspect of this matter, to post it to his talkpage without any delay. And I see that as usual I have failed in my vow to say little. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motions and voting

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

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


Statement by Mackensen

As the committee is no doubt aware Encyclopaedia Dramatica is presently up on Deletion Review, in the form of a new draft article (User:Shii/ED). This editorial process is constrained by findings and rulings from the MONGO case, and may well have outlived their usefulness. The case turned on the harrassment of MONGO by other users, many of whom were connected with ED. While lamentable, this shouldn't have any bearing on our ability to cover or not cover a topic: it is not necessary to endorse the existence of thing in documenting it. Our policies demand an honest editorial debate on the matter, but the broadness of remedy # 1 and the obvious personal umbrage taken by numerous editors, including at least one sitting arbitrator, precludes such a debate.

FoF # 13 states that the article was deleted because "the content of the article was mainly derived from ED and our reaction to it, there being very little other information available to use as a reliable source." Arbcom isn't supposed to make content rulings, but we sometimes sneak them in anyway through obiter dicta like that one. Real challenges have been raised as to whether this is really the case anymore, and Shii's draft article does not fit such a description. This, more than anything else, suggests that the principles which undergird the case are no longer operative.

I would request that remedy # 1 be clarified either to refer only to articles concerning specific Wikipedia users, or revoked altogether. Most things on ED aren't suitable for this wiki anyway because of our "vast policy differences." In my view the committee overreached and prejudiced editorial decisions in drafting this decision. Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

Hey all...my deepest appreciation for informing me about this discussion! Seriously, an arbitration case I was named in, that appears to be on the threshold of having its major motions and remedies eliminated or severely altered and NO ONE BOTHERS TO LET ME KNOW! As can be seen by the DRV on this article, there does not seem to be a community backed consensus to restore the article that has been developed in another editor's userspace. [39]...so what brings all this up? Well, let me inform you of what I know. Firstly, over a dozen of our editors resigned due to the ongoing harassment posted about them at that website...Do we need to be so inclusive we risk losing editors just so we can be such a compendium of "knowledge"...I think not. The website is of only marginal notability at best...at best. Let me repeat my first point...I know of at least a dozen editors who quit editing here because of the stuff posted on that website. I know this because after I went through what I did with the people affiliated with that website, I received over a dozen calls for aide...at one point the possibility of suing them was considered. Phaedriel was probably the best known editor to abandon this project...thanks in no small part to that website. Second point...IF we recreate the article, then ultimately someone will link to that website...that is where my fight started. They made their MONGO article "featured" and posted it on their mainpage...I repeatedly removed those links from our article on that website and was combated by a series of trolls and other editors who for some bizarre reason did not understand that I was not going to allow them or that website to libel me via this one...I am not a pedophile as the people there have written. Phaedriel is not the things they claim about her, nor are the other "wikipedos" that they have listed, accurately depicted. For the record, the article they have on me is far from the worst...very far from it. But I am here on wikipedia to write articles and to protect our editors from harassment...I cannot do that if we, as a website, are going to turn a blind eye to this major issue just so we can be "all inclusive", especially when we are talking about a website of extremely marginal notability, that attacks our contributors, and yes, slanders and libels them. Many complain that we, right here on Wikipedia, also slander and libel people, especially in our bios...that is a serious issue, but we have the power here to do something about that. We do not have the power to make adjustments to the same (and generally far worse) slander and libel that ED presents. But we can control whether we import that nonsense here. There are still millions of articles we can write...what the heck makes having an article on ED so important? How many articles do we yet lack about various insect species, birds, plants, glaciers, people, events, places? Maybe the committee would be better off telling the dramaqueens that have started to proliferate this website to start writing articles and stop wasting our server space with their generally worthless opinions, than spending so much energy rewriting an arbitration case in which the situation hasn't changed...that website still lacks notability, it still libels our contributors, it will ultimately lead to further problems...and further time wasted here, in this particular forum. Lastly, I do have other things I can do with my time than edit here...my life is valuable to me and the friends I have made here on this website are important to me...let's not be trendy and get limp wristed about this matter...we have an obligation to do all we can to make editing here a pleasant experience...not one where we have to look over our shoulder wondering why some creep has decided that he can link to ED and attack our contributors in the process. Yes, I know, the committee does not make content rulings in most cases...well maybe you should in this matter and do so with the spirit of respect and in the interest of facilitating encyclopedia writing and the writers who contribute here and ensuring they have the ability to spend their valuable personal time in peace as much as possible.--MONGO 07:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is really funny and so predictable. I just knew good ole Dtobais would show up to make his comment here...he wants Sceptre's activities examined here...lets instead examine Mr. Tobais...yes, examine via his own precious links to wikipedia review the less than appealing comments he has made about our editors...heck, lets examine his ongoing insults posted right here on this page and numerous others on wikipedia, where he neverendingly refers to those with the opposite beliefs of his on this type of subject as cabals, cliques, cadres.--MONGO 17:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Dtobias

The ill-conceived original MONGO decision was an unwarranted attempt on the part of ArbCom to make policy, and has been continually cited ever since by a small clique that is intent on imposing censorship of links that hurt their feelings. This BADSITES concept, a really bad idea, has been resoundingly rejected by the community as a whole every time it has come up. It's time to drive a stake through its heart once and for all. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that we don't let millions of Muslims offended by our images of Mohammed sway our editorial decisions, but we do let the offense of a handful of Wikipedians against ED influence us, says loads about our screwy priorities. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some inquiry into the actions of User:Sceptre would seem to be warranted; he attempted to intimidate the editor who proposed deletion review of ED by referring repeatedly to earlier people who did a similar thing getting banned, and also censored the discussion using a highly expansionist interpretation of the past ArbCom ruling whereby even links to the Alexa rankings of ED were considered illegal. His actions present a poster child for why the ArbCom ruling was a bad idea and ought to be overturned. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny and predictable that, rather than respond in a rational manner to my comments, MONGO instead engages in ad-hominem attacks at me. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carcharoth

I note that the deletion review of Encyclopedia Dramatica recently closed as "keep deleted", which is a fair enough close. I did notice one further edit, possibly as a result of this, or maybe not. Would the arbitration committee be able to comment on whether "recreation of the article" covers Encyclopedia Dramatica being mentioned at all in Wikipedia articles? ie. either in passing in other articles, or as a paragraph about the website, or as a section or entry in a list article? I raised this possibility at the DRV, but it didn't generate much discussion (possibly I arrived at the DRV too late for many people to even read what I posted there). I noted there that a sentence mentioning Encyclopedia Dramatica had existed at Criticism of Wikipedia#Humorous criticism for at least 5.5 months with seemingly no objections. Shortly after the deletion review finished, an IP editor removed the sentence in question from the "Criticism of Wikipedia" article. I have raised the issue at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia#Satire sentence removed. My question is, since that was to my knowledge the only reference in any Wikipedia article to Encyclopedia Dramatica, are we trying to remove any and all references to Encyclopedia Dramatica from all articles? If not, then are editors free to add "subarticle" level of material on Encyclopedia Dramatica to other Wikipedia articles where relevant? Carcharoth (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question has now been reverted. Carcharoth (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • "MONGO" (Oct 2006) and its more measured sister case a year later, "attack sites" (Oct 2007), were cases held at a time of high pressure. Shortly after the 'attack sites' case, the matter was in fact resolved not by huge edits and new policies, but by a few simple edits to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and a backup page explaining offsite attack links. MONGO is still cited these days as a base case on some issues, so it's worthwhile for that reason too -- especially as a significant number of users feel that it is now an arbcom-imposed 'blocker' for a possibly valid article, for reasons decided in the context of a heated dispute around 18 months ago. The community has broadly appeared to mature and deal with the issue, but these two cases are still cited and occasionally lead to problems and conflicts in the editorial process. Decisions drafted at heated times, especially very influential decisions, are often targeted to deal with the present issue and may well benefit from review, to consider whether they are still the best for us. Now its calmer, its sensible to have a second look at their long term results and double-check if those're the best we have. Without prejudice as to outcome, I'd agree that it may be useful to have a review by the Committee to consider these in the light of 2008. We probably could usefully do so. Accept. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. The Arbitration Committee should not permanently make a content ruling, if at all. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That too. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, a deletion review of Encyclopaedia Dramatica ("ED") is taking place—DRV being the appropriate forum because permission is being sought to re-create an article on a previously deleted topic. In the discussion so far, the majority view appears to be that ED is of borderline notability in terms of warranting a Wikipedia article, meaning that is within a reasonable discretionary range whether to have an article on it or not. In that context, in my DRV comment I made what I thought was a commonplace observation noting that ED's content includes material intentionally targeted at harassing and causing emotional distress to Wikipedia contributors. For example, because I once intervened as an administrator in an attempt to stop what I perceived as on-wiki harassment of an editor who was a minor, an ED article now lists me among Wikipedians who should be "rounded up and gassed like Jews." The Wikipedia community could quite reasonably determine that this type of material on a borderline-notable website disqualifies it from entitlement to a Wikipedia article publicizing such material or from any other form of our further attention. However, to the extent I expressed this opinion on the DRV, I did so as an individual editor, not as an administrator and certainly not as an arbitrator.
Mackensen appears to be concerned that this committee's unanimous decision barring links to ED in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, followed by the more splintered decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites, are being read by some as a prohibition against re-creating an article on ED regardless of the outcome of the DRV. Although this frankly would not be a heartbreaking result, I can understand the view that even so extreme a situation as gave rise to the committee's MONGO decision in the first place (it was written for a reason) should yield to the longstanding rule that the Arbitration Committee does not make content decisions.
Three of my colleagues above have voted to "accept" this matter for a review. Normally, requests for clarification are the subject of either arbitrator comments or a motion, not of "acceptance" or "rejection." In the two instances in which a case was formally accepted for review, a case page was created for statements and evidence, the review case stayed open for a number of weeks, and a new decision containing a full set of principles, findings, and remedies was handed down. That procedure would seem to be overkill in the context of the particular issue raised, would probably create a spate of Arbitratia Dramatica, and would threaten to consume a substantial amount of the community's and the committee's time and attention, at a time when the committee is behind schedule in dealing with several of our pending cases despite a historically low caseload.
Moreover, if, as my colleague FT2 suggests above, the issues underlying the Attack sites case have largely been resolved by the community, it would be grossly counterproductive to reopen the matter at the ArbCom level, particularly given that the main remedy in the Attack sites decision was a referral of the policy issues to the community in the first place.
Under the circumstances, the best way to deal with the request for clarification is probably to have an up-or-down vote on the principal concern expressed. Accordingly, I offer (but will abstain from voting on) the motion below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Might be better conceptually, rather than a ruling that says "don't link to ED" and another that says "you can create an article though", to modify those decisions to refer to the class of links that are problematic, and the class of sites ED is in, and how they should be handled? It is possible to say "creating an article on ED is allowed without using any source on ED", but it might be nicer (and more productive) to handle it like this:
  1. Give a clear definition of the way to gauge if a link is an "attack link" problem, and then clarify those links fall under WP:NPA,
  2. Clarify that in referencing sites known for carrying attacks and outings, exceptional care must be taken, including avoiding links where there is no overriding valid purpose that cannot be better served from a different location, and provide that consensus (not "attack site/BLP" revert wars and fighting) are looked to, if there is uncertainty, and
  3. Update references in "MONGO" to these more useful concepts.
This conceptually covers not just ED, but all such cases in future. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motions and voting

For this motion, there are 13 active Arbitrators (excluding 1 who is abstaining), so 7 votes are a majority.

Motion 1 - It is not prohibited to create a Wikipedia article on Encyclopædia Dramatica (per discussion above):
The Arbitration Committee's decisions in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites shall not be interpreted to prohibit (or to encourage) the creation of an article on Encyclopædia Dramatica. The existence and contents of any such article may be determined through the ordinary editorial and deletion processes.
Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC) (Note that permitting creation of a specific article on ED, and the suggestions below, are mutually compatible if needed.)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 06:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill 03:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. For the purposes of clarification of the previous decision. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support with the understanding that "this motion" will be re-visited if needed. My main concern comes from the past practice of keeping low quality content on site if there is not a consensus to remove vs. requiring a consensus to keep the low quality content. When closing Afds and DRVs, the Community is moving away from this practice especially if there are Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy concerns. This more recent practice is a reasonable approach to resolving user concerns that once low quality articles are added that it must remain on site in anticipation that it will eventually bloom into a well balanced good quality article. If needed I think that the Committee should endorse this practice in a ruling. An Encyclopedia Dramatica article, if ever re-created in a low quality state, might be an good example of why this is not a good idea. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Proposed per above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Motion 2 - Linking if article recreated
If an article on Encyclopædia Dramatica is recreated, then editors may link to or quote that site for that article only, and only so far as is necessary to present high quality encyclopedic coverage whose citing is not possible from independent reliable sources. Questionable quotations and links may be removed by any user without regard to 3RR, pending discussion.
Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC) If recreation is allowed, then guidance on linking is needed, else we will surely have an immediate clarification request. Proposed guidance can be summed up as, "only if you really have to, and only on that article (and pertaining to it)". The "removal" clause is out of respect for the concerns of those who, if it is recreated, will have strong reservations about abuse.[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This would be fair as applied to most sites discussed in the "Attack pages" case or any similar site, but I am gravely troubled by allowing any linking to a site that contains overt and extreme harassment of editors here who are minors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Manifestly this is making policy. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The points made about linking in the Attack sites case remain pertinent here; I see no reason to carve out exceptions for specific sites at this point. Kirill 20:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Sam Blacketer and Newyorkbrad. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This would lead to confusion beyond necessity. On balance, I don't think this would improve the project. James F. (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I would prefer to decide whether to cross this bridge when we come to it, in other words when it is agreed that there can be an article on ED. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Motion 3 - Attack links
Links to media and other non-wiki pages, and external web pages, may be described as "attack links" if it is likely that a user following them would be exposed to material that is a clear personal attack or "outing" on themselves or other specific user(s). It is irrelevant whether the attack is explicit or subtle, or in what format it may be. In judging whether a link is an 'attack link', or judging 'likelihood' for a website, attention should be paid to the size and nature of the site, the location linked within it, the focus and usefulness of material found there, and the likely intentions of the poster, and 'attacks' are to be carefully distinguished from mere 'criticisms'. A link may be an attack link in one context and not in another, and may need removal even if not deliberately posted as a means of personal attack.
Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The committee's decision in the Attack sites case states that the policy issues surrounding links to "attack sites" or "attack pages" are referred to the community for policy development. Discussion of appropriate policies has continued and it appears that the issue is being responsibly addressed. I am not convinced there is a need for further action in this divisive policy area by the committee at this time. Therefore, although this proposal appears to be substantially sound as a policy matter, I am not convinced that it should be adopted by the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This kind of principle is well within norms and our usual role. Compare MONGO 11: A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances ("an attack site/link is one with these characteristics, and these norms apply"). FT2 (Talk | email) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I see no need to dig up Attack sites at this point; the present matter shows that the community is able to deal with it as a matter of course, if nothing else. Kirill 03:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is an attempt to revive 'Attack sites' which was rejected by the community. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Manifestly this is making policy. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Charles, Flo. The community either has no real appetite for this policy, or insufficient cohension to push it through, as per the previous cases. James F. (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I mostly agree with the motions wording, and completely with the spirit of the motion, but I think it needs to come from the Community per policy not by a new ruling of the Committee. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Motion 4 - Sourcing from websites known to carry material pejorative to users
In referencing sites known for carrying attack or "outing" material against users, exceptional care must be taken, including avoiding links where there is no overriding valid purpose that cannot be better served from a better location. Any user may replace such a link by another link serving the same purpose, from a less contentious website, or removing it (with posters agreement if possible) if it is not needed for a legitimate communal process. Links that have both valid concerns and also possible value, may need consensus-seeking to determine whether they have enough value to override the possible concerns.
Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The committee's decision in the Attack sites case states that the policy issues surrounding links to "attack sites" or "attack pages" are referred to the community for policy development. Discussion of appropriate policies has continued and it appears that the issue is being responsibly addressed. I am not convinced there is a need for further action in this divisive policy area by the committee at this time. Therefore, although this proposal appears to be substantially sound as a policy matter, I am not convinced that it should be adopted by the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This kind of principle is well within norms and our usual role. This is a more useful and usable reworking of the aim of the MONGO restrictions on certain sites. It does not introduce any contentious new policy, but does well address the situation and similar situations that MONGO tried to address on ED. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 06:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Per Brad.[reply]
  3. As in #3. Kirill 03:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Same issue as motion 3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Manifestly this is making policy. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per my thoughts on 3. James F. (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I mostly agree with the motions wording, and completely with the spirit of the motion, but I think it needs to come from the Community per policy not by a new ruling of the Committee. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Motion 5 - Amendment to past cases
In the case "Mongo", principles 3 and 7 shall be reworded to refer to "attack links", remedy 1 shall be reworded to refer to "links that the community determines are attack links may be removed" (etc.), and enforcement 1 shall refer to "attack links" and the reference to imported material and recording of blocks struck out.
Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As in #3. Kirill 03:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. To go with opposition to motions 3 and 4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Let sleeping dogs lie. Past principles have no value for precedent or policy. They had the purpose of explaining how a decision was made. If the decision was wrong, we should be considering that for review, not undermining it in this fashion. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per Charles Matthews. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Charles. James F. (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I would prefer a simple statement that a policy adopted by consensus of the community supersedes the MONGO and Attack sites cases, if that is what it is sought to accomplish here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The bulk of MONGO and Attack sites is sound and we probably don't wish to weaken or upturn them. But these specific items are outdated, and 18 months on hinder rather than help. Withdrawing them will be useful. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Statement by MastCell

I recently requested review of the Ferrylodge decision, which found that Ferrylodge was subject to indefinite sanctions and could be banned from any "article" relating to pregnancy or abortion which he disrupted. I believe that Ferrylodge was disruptive at Talk:Abortion; however, there was some dispute as to whether the sanction extended to all namespaces, or merely article-space.

The previous request is here. It was archived by a clerk at a point where two Arbs had opined, seeming (to me at least) to indicate that the sanction should apply across all namespaces. However, the AE request which started it all was closed without action based on the recent Macedonia clarification. I'm a bit confused.

I'd like a clear finding about whether Ferrylodge's sanction applies to all namespaces, or only to article-space. If it applies narrowly to article-space, then I'd like to request that the Committee formally extend the sanction to all namespaces, as Ferrylodge's disruptive editing has always been most prominent in talkspace. While the specific thread which led to my request has become dormant, the underlying issue remains, and Ferrylodge has in the past temporarily improved his behavior when under scrutiny only to relapse when the scrutiny is lifted. Therefore, I'd like to request that the sanction be prospectively clarified or amended to apply to all namespaces.

Given the extensive degeneration and misdirection evident at my prior request, I'll state upfront that I'm not going to respond to attacks, criticism, deflection, specific content issues, etc in this request. I want to keep this focused on the specific amendment I'm requesting. I will provide more detailed evidence of any specific claim should the Arbitrators think it would be useful; that will be the extent of my commentary here. MastCell Talk 18:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ferrylodge

Unfortunately, I do not have time today to comment much. Hopefully I will have time to respond more fully on Monday or Tuesday. Unsurprisingly, I disagree with Mastcell.

The administrator who handled this matter at Arbitration Enforcement said: "Even had the ArbComm clarified that it was clearly intended to cover talk pages; I was probably not going to act. Using an article's talkpage to discuss article content is not inherently disruptive; that is the intended purpose of the talk page."[43]

Mastcell has not cited any specific article edit by me that he finds disruptive; he has only provided talk page diffs. And yet, he is requesting a vast expansion of the ArbCom decision in my case: "I'd like to request that the sanction be prospectively clarified or amended to apply to all namespaces." Is Mastcell referring to project namespace? Is he referring even to user namespace? I do not know. In any event, if Mastcell really wants to argue that I have recently been behaving disruptively at the abortion talk page, it would be most helpful if Mastcell would please identify the single specific diff that he thinks is most egregious, so that we can focus on it.

I believe that Mastcell was being disruptive recently at the abortion-related articles, and I have no regrets about reverting him here at the abortion article. I also continue to be flabbergasted by his subsequent reversion here at the related main article. So, I have concerns that Mastcell may be using this ArbCom forum in consequence of a content dispute, rather than because of any real disruption on my part.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Mastcell indicates[44] that he does not want to identify the specific diff that he thinks is most egregious (as I requested above), I doubt it would be helpful for me to say anything further at this time.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

I see that this request for clarification has sat here for 10 days without input from any arbitrator, which is excessive, and I apologize since the situation is 1/15th my fault. Having said that, can I ask the parties to comment whether this situation is an ongoing problem that you feel still requires action by the committee, or whether it has calmed down. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please feel free to move this comment if it belongs elsewhere The specific dispute which sparked this request is stale. I don't see any need to do anything retroactive to address such past disputes anymore - it would be punitive at this point - but I would still like a narrow and straightforward prospective clarification that in the future Ferrylodge's sanctions apply across all namespaces, if ArbCom feels this is appropriate. In this specific case the letter of the decision appears to be fairly important, and without a clarification my belief is that this will come up again. Just a simple change in the remedy from "articles" to "any page" would do the trick from my perspective. MastCell Talk 21:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please feel free to move this comment if it belongs elsewhere Mastcell is requesting a change in the remedy in my case. This should be supported by evidence. It would be helpful if Mastcell would please identify the specific diff that he thinks is most representative of such evidence, so that we could focus on it. Additionally, I would like to ask how to go about entirely erasing the remedy in my case. Presumably it was not intended to last for the rest of my life. The remedy has been in effect since last year, and there have not been any blocks or bans.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motions and voting

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking_3

Initiated by Avruch T at 01:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Avruch

I would ask the Committee to again reconsider the remedies of the Everyking3 case, including its recently passed motion responding to Everyking's appeal. I've written my concerns to the Committee mailing list, but the message is being held for moderator approval. The two motions considered by the Committee upon revisiting the remedies in this case both enjoyed the support of a majority of the Committee but are clearly contradictory.

Motion 1 eliminates all but one remedy and implies approval of the appeal, while Motion 2 leaves two remedies intact and applies an additional, unconsidered remedy that limits the ability of the subject of this case to file additional appeals and implicitly disapproves of the appeal as filed. The apparent contradiction and the fact that the outcome does not appear to take the requested outside views into account calls into question whether the Committee fully considered the elements of this case before Motion 2 was found to have passed.

With respect, Avruch T 01:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional, responding to Arbitrators comments so far

Comments so far have focused exclusively on the procedural issue of the motions and the order of passage. I don't disagree that this is partly the source of the confusion - observers not walking through the history to see the votes in progress will see that both motions pass, but only motion 2 is considered in effect. Still, if motion 1 passed second and represents a significant deviation from motion 2, the import of that should be considered.

Even so, the substantive issue appears to be more important to me - aside from which motion should have effect based on Committee procedure, it is clear regardless that both motions had a majority support of the same Committee and largely the same members and yet they clearly contradict eachother in meaning. Why would the same members support in one moment a continuation of only one remedy and a lifting of all other sanctions and in another moment support continuing two remedies and adding a third? There doesn't appear to be evidence indicating an abuse of the appeal process by Everyking, so what is the unenumerated justification for limiting his ability to appeal? Connections have been drawn to the US Supreme Court, where summary judgments without greater explanation are not uncommon - I think it would be a mistake for the Committee to adopt this habit, because the community of which the Committee is a part requires greater clarity.

Respectfully, Avruch T 16:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

It looks like three participating Arbitrators have expressed a willingness to revote the items of the motions separately, and three have not. What is the next step on this before it gets archived as stale? Avruch T 14:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Uninvolved User Jay*Jay

I do not recall ever having edited with Everyking and so can make no comment on his actions or the ArbCom sanctions. However, I am greatly concerned by the way the appeal has been handled and want to strongly endorse Avruch's request for a reconsideration. My concern is two-fold. Firstly, as Avruch has noted and the related AN discussion shows, the imposition of a new restriction on making an appeal appears punitive. The philosophy underling sanctions (bans, blocks, etc) is supposed to be to protect the encyclopedia and to prevent disruption. I fail to see how this restriction pursues either aim, as no suggestion of disruption has been made, and the ArbCom believed the appeal was sufficiently warranted to debate and pass two separate ammednment motions, both of which reduce the sanctions on Everyking. The situation is akin to a court finding for the plaintiff and then ordering that the plaintiff pay costs for both parties. It is, frankly, bizarre.

My second concern relates to the contradiction which has also been noted elsewhere. This diff includes the entire appeal case immediately prior to it being archived. I suggest that the summary of the motion presented on the case page and the relating modification is in error, for the following reasons:

  1. Motions require a majority of 8 to pass, and motion 1 passes 8-2 with 1 abstention - there is no requirement, as I understand it, for a net vote of 8, merely a simple majority.
  2. Motion 2 is recorded as passing 11-1. However, this count is only correct if Newyorkbrad's vote is taken as an 'oppose'. His vote actually stated that it "should be counted as an "oppose" if both motions have a majority and the question is which one has more support" - showing that the passing of motion 1 was recognised.
  3. Four ArbCom members (Newyorkbrad, FT2, Paul August, and Sam Blacketer) expressly noted a preference for motion 1 over motion 2. Although only Newyorkbrad expressly noted that such a preference means opposition of motion 2 if motion 1 passes, a reasonable interpretation (in light of motion 1's passing) would be that motion 2 actually has 8 supports and 4 neutral/oppose votes.

Possible resolutions: There are several ways in which this contradiction can be resolved. They include:

  • Passing only motion 1 as motion 2 has more opposition than does motion 1 - problematic, as it remains the case that both should pass.
  • Asking Deskana, who expressly states that "either is fine", to form a preference, thus supporting only one motion and being neutral or opposing the other - thereby resolving which motion passes.
  • Ask for reconsideration by some or all of Kirill, FloNight, and Blnguyen, each of whom also supported both motions, to express a preference for a single motion and neutrality or opposition towards the other - which would also resolve which motion passes.
  • I do not see any additional clarity is gained by reconsideration by any of the four remaining ArbCom members who voted (UnivitedCompany, Charles Matthews, bainer, and jpgordon), as each has indicated a clear preference (either in comment or by vote) for motion 2 over motion 1. However, there were (at the time of the appeal) three other active ArbCom members who have noted voted and who could. I am not sure that this would be helpful, as no vote by them could alter the fact that both motions received the support needed to pass.

I strongly believe that the appeal should be reopened, as the present outcome is not only unjust and inequitable (in adding a new appeal restriction), but also seriously flawed by internal contradiction. Two conflicting motions should not ever be passed, and the need for clarity for the community strongly indicates that ArbCom should re-open the appeal to resolve the ambiguity as a matter of urgency. The are obviously other possible appraoches to providing clarity that the Committee could adopt - simply holding a fresh vote on each motion would be one, provided members recognised that supporting both motions is unsatisfactory if suitabke caveats are not noted. I have no stake in what solution is adopted, although believe that the appeal restriction appears punitive and unjustified; however, I implore the Committee members to act to provide clarity. Jay*Jay (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I note that there has also been discussion here on Thatcher's talk page about the closure and the interpretation of two passing motions. That discussion further serves to highlight the unsatisfactory and subjective approach applied in situations such as this. I have absolutely no doubt that Thatcher acted in good faith in trying to resolve the situation, but it is impossible to escape the conclusion that ArbCom passed two contradictory motions. Leaving the interpretation of that action to the discretion of a single Clerk - who in this case chose to disregard a passed motion - is unacceptable. Wjbscribe's analysis below shows that the opposite result can be obtained by another reasonable interpretation of passing two motions - actually applying both, in either sequence. The fault here lies squarely with ArbCom, as it was their actions that have created the ambiguity. It is up to ArbCom to resolve this problem. I have proposed several possible approaches. Wjbscribe provides another, in that ArbCom could simply affirm that both motions passed and that both must be applied. Newyorkbrad provides another, in that individual votes could be held on each individual modification. Please, re-open the appeal, and act to fix the problem that you have created. It is reasonable to leave to admin discretion and community interpretation what enforcement might be required for any breach of an ArbCom-imposed sanction, but it is not reasonable to require discretion of a Clerk or anyone else be used in determination of what are those sanctions. ArbCom acts careful to avoid such ambiguity by passing only single and unambiguous sanctions in its cases, and has erred in not acting carefully with respect to the motions in the appeal. Rectifying this error is necessary and urgent, as the present ambiguity is unacceptable. Jay*Jay (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Comment from Thatcher: The problem is concisely illustrated when Thatcher sighes that the two motions were mutually incompatible, they could not both pass. The problem, of course, is that they did both pass. The correctness or otherwise of any analysis of conditional votes is irrelevant. Analysis should never be required to interpret whether a binding decision was made, and such analysis cannot alter the unarguable fact that both motions did pass. The fact that the present analysis results in the application of a new restriction on Everyking simply makes the situation worse. The origin of the ambiguity lies in ArbCom passing contradictory motions, and only ArbCom can address the situation. Jay*Jay (talk) 08:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WJBscribe

I emailed the following analysis to ArbCom yesterday:

My understanding of the process is as follows: 8 Arbitrators is a majority. Proposals supported by 8 or more Arbitrators pass.

In this case, two motions were supported by 8 or more Arbitrators, therefore logically both must pass. A majority of Arbitrators have supported lifting the following sanctions against Everyking through their support of motion #1:

  1. Remedy 5 of EK
  2. The harassment ban and terms of enforcement in the July 2006 amendment to EK3

It does not seem to matter which motion passed first. If motion #1 passed first, these remedies no longer existed to be "continued" by motion #2. If motion #2 passed first, these remedies were then terminated by the passing of motion #1. The latter scenario seems to have occured here as motion #2 reached a majority first. Motion #1 should not have been ignored simply because motion #2 passed as it too enjoyed a majority. The fact that one motion enjoyed more support than the other does not seem relevant as the criteria for passage is reaching a majority, not the greatest majority. Looked at another way, if motion #1 were voted on now and reached the same level, it would clearly take effect.

In this case, it seems to me that both motions have passed and come into effect by result of being supported by 8 Arbitrators. The only remedy Everyking therefore remains subject to is: Remedy X of EK3 (non-interaction and non-commenting on Snowspinner/Phil Sandifer). And he is (through motion #2) restricted from appealing that remedy more than once a year.

Therefore I believe a further post to AN is required informing the community of the effects of motion #1 passing (that two of the sanctions continued by motion #2 are now terminated), and that Everyking should be notified that the sanctions against him are further reduced by the success of that motion. The present result means that although Everyking gained the support of a majority of the full Committee for lifting those 2 sanctions, he remains subject to them. I do not believe this to be a fair result. WjBscribe 04:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by David Mestel

In my view, the most significant problem here resulted from the fact that the motions were listed as "1" and "2", rather than "1" and "1.1", as is the norm where there are multiple alternative proposals (see, for example, here), and the correct action would have been to renumber them accordingly; perhaps it would be a good idea for the committee to make clear that it is happy for clerks to do this when proposals are clearly incompatible (such as these proposals in Ehud Lesar), subject obviously to reversion if arbitrators disagree. Notwithstanding this, there is considerable ambiguity as to how alternative proposals should be resolved, and I would respectfully commend to the committee my proposals here, subject to rewriting for clarity. I understand and accept Newyorkbrad's point that they are rather complex, but in my submission this should not be too much of a problem, since they are to be applied by clerks who presumably have studied and understood them, and any editors who object to or are puzzled by a result are also likely to have sufficient motivation also to read and understand them, or, alternatively, to ask for explanation. In any event, it is clearly more transparent to have a concrete though somewhat complex set of written procedures, rather than to rely on unwritten practice and individual judgement.

In these particular circumstances, it is my view that, in the absence of concrete guidelines, Thatcher's judgement of arbitrators' preference was correct (although it might perhaps have been preferable to hold off on closing and seek further guidance), and, if the committee shares this view, it is therefore not necessary to re-open the appeal, and the best course of action would be to adopt a summary motion confirming motion 2 in the appeal, or, in the case of the contrary view, one disapproving the outcome and re-opening the appeal. David Mestel(Talk) 16:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from AGK

Whilst I rarely make comment on matters in cases out with those I am directly involved in, I feel compelled to make public my feelings on this matter. The underlying problems in this case are somewhat simple, and easily remediable:

  • Confusion exists over what the Committee's consensus on this matter is
  • Editors involved in the case, as well as uninvolved users, are of the opinion that the decision that has been posted differs from the consensus of the Committee as a whole, as measured as the vote held on the matter

Respectively, these issues can be addressed very simply:

  • The Committee as a whole (rather than individual arbitrators) clarify its intended decision in this matter,
  • If the intended decision differs from that which has recently been implemented, then the matter be re-opened and consensus re-gauged through the medium of a vote.

My view on whether re-opening the matter for Committee consideration remains unspecified, as I cannot say for certain what the Committee's consensus is, hence my call for a statement from it as a whole on the matter. I reiterate: a statement representing the consensus of the Arbitrators, and released on behalf of the Committee as a whole is necessary, both to clarify the circumstances once-and-for-all, and to provide a basis by which the decision of whether to reopen (and hence re-consider) the matter can be made. AGK (contact) 18:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Zocky

Clerks already write up a summary of each case and post it to the parties' pages. Maybe we could avoid these situations if they wrote the summary before closing the case, so that they have a chance to notice inconsistencies and ask arbitrators for additional information? Zocky | picture popups 20:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In full-fledged cases, a clerk or an arbitrator prepares an "implementation note" at the bottom of the proposed decision page before the motion to close is completed, which allows any ambiguities or anomolies to be identified and addressed and serves exactly the purpose you suggest. That practice has not been used in the "requests for clarifications/motions in closed cases" section where the procedure and format is generally much simpler, but I agree that is a useful suggestion for more complicated situations like this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

The two motions were mutually incompatible, they could not both pass. Note that full cases have a motion to close phase with implementation notes, this gives the Arbitrators a chance to adjust their votes so that their intentions are correctly carried out. Open motions do not have separate votes to close and are usually enacted 24 hours after a majority is apparent. The usual method of analyzing conditional votes was applied. Several other approaches are discussed on my talk page. Thatcher 06:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' views and discussion

  • Comment: There has been detailed discussion from time to time as to how we should decide which alternative proposal passes when multiple proposals on the same topic receive the required majority. In past instances, there have been a couple of times when it was not at all clear which of two alternatives has been adopted, which have been generally been resolved when one or two arbitrators struck their support from their second choices so that the outcome was clarified. Even now, it's not clear to me whether in a case with a required majority of 7, if proposal 1.1 has 8 supports and no opposes, and alternative proposal 1.2 has 9 supports and no opposes but three of the supports are labelled "second choice," which one is enacted. And if one allows for oppose votes also, then it gets even more complicated. A month or so ago, one of our most senior Clerks wrote a note in userspace about how we might address these situations (see, User:David.Mestel/ArbComvoting), which would eliminate these ambiguities, but at the time I judged the proposal to be a bit too complicated to recommend adoption. (paragraph) With respect to these particular motions, a further complication is that the arbitrators felt compelled either to vote for my "motion 1," as a whole, or Jpgordon's alternative motion 2, also as a whole. There were differences not only in the specific sanctions that I thought could be lifted but that Jpg thought should be kept in force, but also in other nuances of the wording (my motion was a narrative with admonitions and observations; Jpg's was just a list, and some arbs might not have cared for my verbosity or my dicta). It's a commonplace in the legal and political science literature that the order of voting and whether issues are voted on jointly and singly can sometimes decide the result of the voting. This has happened in several significant U.S. Supreme Court cases (I've actually been researching a real-world article on the subject; boring details on request; compare also Arrow's theorem). The fairest thing to do here, if the committee determines that there is a problem here that ought to receive further attention in the interests of fairness or the appearance of fairness, would be to vote on the termination or continuation of each of the sanctions as to which the two motions are in disagreement, individually. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The statement 'support as second preference' means that I supported motion 2, but expressed a preference for motion 1 to be adopted if the two emerged with equal approval. In this case they did not have equal approval; motion 1 attracted opposition which was not present for motion 2. In that case the support for motion 2 still stands. The support for either motion was because both took the Everyking case forward by lifting some restrictions, but maintaining some in force; the reason for indicating a preference for motion 1 was because it did not expressly continue a provision which was common sense, would not normally need to be stated, and was difficult to enforce. However a preference for support is not a conditional oppose. Had I intended that meaning, I would have written it explicitly. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Though the motion was closed a little faster than I might have preferred (specifically because of this fuss), the result is consistent with ArbCom's methods in the past. When alternate proposals are put forward, and both pass, the one with the most support wins. In this case, it's even simpler. Open motions, in general, are considered passed as soon as they are supported by a majority of arbitrators. Motion 2 thus could have been considered passed and immediately enacted by the clerks after this vote by Charles Matthews, which made the vote for the first motion 6-2-1 and the vote for the second motion 8-0. The clerks wisely waited, since six and five arbitrators, respectively, had not made their opinions known. In the ensuing three days, the second motion gained four more votes; the first gained two. The consensus of the committee was quite clear and unambiguous at that point; of the two alternate motions, the one with the most support carried. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In answer to Avruch: my own interpretation of the meaning of people voting to support both motions is "Either one is exactly fine with me; I'll go along with the consensus of the Committee". This is based on the assumption that all were aware the two were alternates. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it was pretty clear the two motions were alternates, especially given your comment in opposing my motion that you were offering your own, and the number of references either to "second choice" or "either is fine" or whatever. The fundamental problem may still be, as I observed above, that people were given the choice of voting for your proposal or mine or both or neither, rather than parsing the specifics of each one. Of course any arbitrator could have asked for a division of the question and no one did, but even so. How can division of the question be a redlink? Where are our parliamentary law and procedure articles? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We have it at division (vote) :) --bainer (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no, "division (vote)" or "division of the assembly" refers to the voting process itself, in a legislature or parliamentary body. A request or motion for a "division of the question" (or "to divide the question") is a request that separate, divisible aspects or parts of a main motion be voted on separately. This is definitely going on my wiki-to-do list. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the confusion here is that, as David Mestel observes, these alternative wordings were labelled "1" and "2" and not "1" and "1.1", as is commonly the practice. Clearly none of us intended that these should be anything other than alternatives. I vote that Josh goes home and practices his numbers some more :) --bainer (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To exonerate Josh, I will plead guilty to being the person who introduced the complex numeration scheme "1", "2" into this discussion. Per my comment above, everyone understood these motions were alternatives and I don't believe this contributed in any significant way to the situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understood from Josh's comment these were alternatives. I also understood the question behind them to be - certain matters were agreed redundant (or emerged as such by consensus), but a couple of the restrictions were not clearly agreed redundant and the decision was centered around whether those should be continued at this time. This was my reading of the difference between 1 and 2, and I noted more support seemed to coalesce for the view that considered they should continue.

I am happy to see it re-considered if that would help, since a decision must not only be considered, but must visibly be seen to be clear in its decision where possible. In editorial disputes that often means "go and re-check consensus on it", as in last month's rollback RFAR decline. I'm willing to take the same view here as well. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wait a sec. Have any arbitrators expressed any concern that the result is incorrect or did not reflect our consensus? I mean, we're right here, we're paying attention to this page, it's been brought up on the mailing list, it was brought up on AN/I, and I haven't heard so much as a suggestion from anyone in ArbCom that this was not the appropriate outcome. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there were two motions, each being considered in toto, the conclusion that motion 2 superseded motion 1 is certainly defensible. However, I can't be sure whether a majority of the continuing restrictions that your motion and mine disagreed on, might have been terminated if the points had been voted on item-by-item. If Everyking were able to come back in a reasonable time and raise the individual items again (and we would re-vote now knowing that it should be done differently), that would be okay. But the last point of your motion also locks him out of making another appeal for another full year, and given the ambiguity of the result on the current appeal, that does bother me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that bothers me too. Paul August ☎ 05:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lesson here on "block voting" alternatives which are similar but not identical. I'm happy to do it again more "item by item", simply because although I think it was closed according to intent, it's in a way, better to revote it than to have uncertainty. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After considering this for some time, and in view of the dispute over the format of the voting that arose through no fault of Everyking, I have concluded that it will be in the interest of actual and perceived fairness to offer new motions. This assumes that Everyking would like for the matter to be reconsidered at this point. The motions will be formatted so that the continuation of each sanction still in force following the adoption of motion 2 would be voted upon individually. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Digwuren

Statement by Moreschi

I'm requesting clarification as regards this FoF and this remedy. I've just blocked said user, RJ CG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for edit-warring yet again. Time for the "summary bans" bit to be enforced? Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 23:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that reminds me: if an arbitrator/checkuser with knowledge of the Estonian sock stable could figure out who on earth 84.50.127.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), also blocked for his part in the edit-war, actually is, this might be helpful. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 23:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Martintg

I see that Kirill is wishing to apply additional remedies from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles. What's the scope? I don't think it is necessary in Estonia related articles, there has hardly been any activity, let alone disputes, with only User:RJ CG popping his head in briefly after a long break before being promptly blocked for two weeks for 3RR. As I said previously, Wikiproject Estonia has been chilled to the bone with most of the editors leaving the project, with no significant articles created or expanded, except for football it seems. I suppose if you are going to turn the screws even tighter, how about also adding:

  • The applicable scope: Eastern Europe broadly defined, or just Estonia related articles?
  • The definition of uninvolved admin for enforcement from that case as well Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Uninvolved_administrators
  • Lifting of the ban for Digwuren. Nobody from either side wanted year long bans. Given Digwuren only joined around April 2007, had not been previously subjected any other genuine dispute resolution attempts before being taken to ArbCom (obviously Irpen's opinions carry a lot of weight with ArbCom), this newbie certainly has been bitten hard. We need at least one person from Estonia who can speak the language and willing to contribute meaningfully to articles.

Thanks. Martintg (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Biophys

Unlike Israeli-Palestinian conflict, "Eastern European subjects" are not clearly defined. Does this include every Russia-related topic, like Russia-China relations or Soviet intelligence operations in the United States? If we want to follow the "Israeli-Palestinian" remedy, the "conflict area" should be clearly defined, say "Russian-Polish" or "Russian-Estonian" conflicts. Anything that is not area of conflict (e.g. articles on Russian-Turkish subjects or internal Russian affairs) do not belong there. Could you please clarify which subjects are covered?Biophys (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, I would highly appreciate any answer. ArbCom members are votiong below, but about what?Biophys (talk)

Statement by User:Vecrumba

I would like to know better what's being defined as the scope of applicability and what, if any, specific history of warnings is being proposed as moving sanctions to the "next level." My concern is that as the scope is expanded, "uninvolved" will also extend to "uninformed"--there has to be substantial awareness of editors' past histories in order to draw an objective judgement. If you just go by who accuses whom in the latest trail, it's quite possible that all that happens is a blanket conviction of the guilty and the innocent--if you come in on a fight, how do you know who started it? The notion that someone who is attacked is just going to sit and smile and assume good faith is only good for one round of edits; if an editor persists in behavior that is taken as an attack, the attacked editor(s) will respond and should not be held equally to blame for any escalation. —PētersV (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a code of etiquette. I have debated (civilly) paid propaganda pushers by sticking to sources, so I know it is possible not to escalate into conflict. What has worked is...
  • Always stick to what a source says. This is not as simple as it sounds, I've had to buy $150 sources (not even available at the library) just to prove they were being quoted correctly, literally, but being grossly misrepresented to push a patently false POV.
  • Corollary: Article content should be based on what sources say, not on what editors interpret sources to say. Editors have summarized content coming to different conclusions regarding content in characterizing reputable sources which differ from the authors' own summaries appearing within those self-same materials.
  • Corollary: Use the same terminology in the article as in reputable sources. For example, neither embellish nor dilute words such as "occupied." That "occupy" can be taken to be "accusatory" is irrelevant, if it is what the reputable source uses, that is what the Wikipedia article uses.
  • Discuss any major changes prior to making them, whether additions, modifications, or deletions. If consensus is not reached, the change is not made. If consensus is reached, then changes are implemented. Delete first, discuss later (in the area of articles where there is significant polarization of position or initial "disapprovals" are lodged by historically known antagonists) is looked upon as an act of bad faith, that is, preemptive removal of content without discussion or consensus is viewed as edit warring. —PētersV (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Relata refero

I have recently stumbled across Denial of the Holodomor, which I discovered while cleaning up Historical revisionism, and am startled by the level of hostility and accusations of bad faith that seem to be acceptable in this area, even towards those manifestly uninvolved. I would like some firm statements adjuring editors to read and follow WP:OR and WP:AGF, as well as some sense that adminstrators will be able to evaluate those who are 'involved' accurately, and that there will be some appealing of that judgment. Relata refero (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that I assume that the area of "conflict" is all those articles that have as their subjects the history and current status of the relations between Russia and the former states of the USSR/Warsaw Pact. Relata refero (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd mention regarding Denial of the Holodomor that several editors including myself were reprimanded when Gatoclass made some assertions which led to a degenerating spiral we could not escape from. All participants were "put on the list" by Thatcher. I disagreed with Thatcher's conclusion regarding my personal editorial conduct, however, I still prefer that to the alternative.
  You're only coming to the discussion there on what I think is its third round. I completely agree that the general "divide" is along versions of history which echo Sovietism and versions by the countries formerly subjugated under Sovietism. I say "versions" because basic facts are often in dispute, they are not "views" or "POVs" regarding a common set of facts or circumstances. —PētersV (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It must be said that "stumbled across Denial of the Holodomor" consisted of Relata refero initially deleting huge sections of referenced content on February 12th from that article without first discussing the issues or obtaining consensus on the talk page. Not the best way to introduce one self to the other editors of any article, however Relata refero's edit history only goes back to October 11, 2007, so perhaps it was inexperience. Despite this, the other editors have been exceedingly patient and civil with him/her. Martintg (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See what I mean?
Yes, the article's one of the worst imaginable, and I acted on WP:BRD. About "exceedingly patient and civil"... wow. What a mess EE articles must be if someone thinks that was "exceedingly patient and civil". Strengthens the case for stringent restrictions, I'd say? Relata refero (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we can continue on the article page. It's only the "worst imaginable" partly because (I believe) you believe it is something in scope which it is not, so perhaps we can keep disparaging Q.E.D. remarks to article talk where editors would expect to find them to comment on them. :-) Was there bolding I missed? PētersV (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(cross posted with additions) Mass deletion of EE content is most typically (historically) associated with "I don't like it" edit wars, so I would ask editors to be sensitive to that and discuss prior to deletion, not delete as an act of improvement and then (appear to deign to) discuss. Because of past experiences, that sort of editorial conduct is looked upon as not acting in good faith. Generally speaking, EE article etiquette is to discuss major changes, additions, and deletions prior; to never impose what is written elsewhere in Wikipedia as a "model" or "standard" but to stick to sources, etc. —PētersV (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even unreliable ones...
We shouldn't make excuses for departures from core Wikipedia policies, but look for ways to enforce them. Relata refero (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

I have read this but am recusing from commenting due to my involvement in that case. I will ask the others to look over this. --Deskana (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, comment is probably best given in the first instance by arbitrators who were active when that case was being heard. Deferring to othes to clarify the above. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "summary bans" bit predates some of the more useful methods we've developed since then; I'd prefer not to funnel everything through a bottleneck by having the Committee do everything itself, but rather to take the standard approach we've used for other conflict areas recently. See my motion below. Kirill 13:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am recusing myself due to my prior involvement as an administrator. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motions and voting

For this motion, there are 14 active Arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.

Motion:

The general restriction in the Digwuren case is replaced with the following:
1) Discretionary sanctions
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.
2) Appeal of discretionary sanctions
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.
3) Other provisions
This shall not affect any sanctions already imposed under the old remedies. All sanctions imposed under these provisions are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

  1. I remain convinced that this is the best solution, at least until the working group develops something more useful. Kirill 13:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. This is more helpful to those who find themselves involved in editing disputes over Eastern Europe, whether as participant or administrator. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support so as to conform the rules for discretionary sanctions in this area to the ones we have developed in more recent cases, and without prejudice to any steps we might take later based on recommendations of the working group. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Marting reminds me on my talk that some of his points from above have not been addressed. Would urge that the motion be clarified to address them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=199152323"