Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:23, 9 December 2008

WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review (WP:RREV).

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024
~~Mzajac~~	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	—	Case suspended

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Scientology

Initiated by Durova^Charge! at 18:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Durova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Justallofthem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Jayen466 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jossi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Shutterbug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Misou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
GoodDamon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bravehartbear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Shrampes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

Durova filing party
Justallofthem[1]
Cirt[2]
Jayen466[3]
Jossi[4]
Shutterbug[5]
Misou[6]
GoodDamon[7]
Bravehartbear[8]
Shrampes[9]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Durova

Requesting a follow-on to the COFS arbitration case. After more than a year of relative stability and progress at Scientology topics, recent developments have overwhelmed site processes. On November 26 a thread opened at AE that raised serious concerns about conflict of interest and possible role accounts. Since then several other related concerns have opened at other fora, most of which remain unresolved: a suspected sockpuppet report (unresolved),[10] two checkuser requests (both unfulfilled),[11][12] and a malware linking issue (resolved; Meta has blacklisted the domain). On 6 December a separate thread opened at AE with the first one still open, with the new thread mostly regarding actions by Cirt, and subthreads there have proliferated for two days. Recently Justallofthem announced an intention to introduce concerns about Cirt's use of the admin tools.

So requesting a new case for four reasons:

This expanding dispute is outpacing the community's capacity for response.
Uninvolved admins are unlikely to intervene in multiple large AE threads where many issues are on the table at the same time.
Several of the editors have changed usernames since the previous arbitration case, which makes it harder for uninvolved admins to understand the situation.
Arbitration enforcement is not equipped to respond to misuse of admin tools, if any occurred.

As Cirt's mentor for over a year, I am well aware of his previous history of edit warring. When I conominated him for adminship it was in the belief that he had put that far behind him. Yet recent events are concerning. The scope of concerns here is too broad for a clarification request and deserves thorough attention. Requesting the Committee scrutinize the conduct of all parties. Durova^Charge! 18:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(to FloNight): What's happened in the last two weeks resembles the dynamic that occurred prior to the original COFS case: a topic ban was proposed, then multiple editors with prior involvement lined up in predictable ways, and multiple side issues got raised faster than anyone could solve them. The effect has been to stymie meaningful progress. The few admins who have shown an interest (Jehochman, Jossi) have histories that make them unsuitable to take action. The situation is like a clogged sink that's filling faster than it can drain with no actual plumber in sight.

Some of the issues here are weighty and the rest are too increasing too swiftly. I asked both sides to slow down and table the low priority issues until the preexisting ones got resolved. Unfortunately, not all the disputants accept that advice. Justa accused me of trying to sweep matters under the rug, then announced his intention to expand the second AE thread with admin conduct issues. I certainly don't intend to sweep anything under the rug or shield anybody from legitimate scrutiny, yet AE is not equipped to handle admin conduct issues. In two weeks AE has proven inadequate to the numerous Scientology-related issues already before it. There have, I think, been other post-arbitration attempts at formal dispute resolution (I'll leave the Wikipedians who edit these areas to introduce that). I wish things hadn't come to this, but RFAR really seems like the right call under the present circumstances. Durova^Charge! 20:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

I witnessed this blossoming dispute, and feel that arbitration is inevitable. Better to hear the matter now before disruption becomes more widespread. The threads at WP:AE look like miniature arbitration cases. That board is ill-suited to dealing with such complexity. Jehochman ^Talk 18:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flo, the problem is deadlock. We cannot generate a consensus at WP:AE for whatever reasons, and there does not seem to be any admin willing to take action. (I'd normally step up to the plate, but as a party to the original case, I should not.) The parties should have used mediation or requests for comment to resolve content disagreements, though we cannot force them. The large amount of evidence is not "bad" per se; however, lengthy presentations are ill suited to noticeboards. Jehochman ^Talk 20:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDamon

I strongly suspected something like this would eventually happen, and feel some culpability in the matter as the one who initiated the incident report that became the first of the recent WP:AE reports. Nevertheless, I stand by that report.

My concerns are simple. I have edited in many areas of Wikipedia, and in particular recently found myself on the receiving end of long-term abusive sockpuppetry in an unrelated family of articles about political groups. As an editor, I should not be expected to work with or tolerate abusive sockpuppetry -- much less WP:ROLE accounts. When several long-quiescent accounts started editing in the Scientology series again, I was made aware of something that I hadn't known previously: That several of the accounts, notably Misou and Shutterbug, were confirmed socks editing from a Church of Scientology-owned IP address. This appears, at least to me, to be an open-and-shut case of sockpuppetry and/or role accounts. As the accounts in question are already well-established as single-purpose ones, I do not understand why they/she/he were permitted to continue.

In the original ArbCom, one of the principles agreed upon was "Multiple editors with a single voice", establishing that it is difficult to determine strict sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry in cases where shared IP addresses are claimed, and thus remedies are to be behavior-based for such cases. But when the IP addresses in question belong to the organization that the Wikipedia article is about, it ceases to be merely sock/meatpuppetry, and starts leaning into WP:ROLE territory: Accounts created on behalf of the organization in question that exist for the sole purpose of pushing that organization's positive perspective.

Again, this is simple: I and other editors who find themselves interested in Scientology enough to contribute to this body of articles should not have to "compete" with a person or people working directly for the Church of Scientology. I am neutral on Scientology itself, but I have a very strong POV regarding this. --GoodDamon 18:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To FloNight

For my part, I was hoping the community would handle this, but I only have one complaint and I'm not sure why it requires such a complex environment as this one to handle. My points are simple:

Shutterbug, Misou, and several other accounts were confirmed socks.
They claimed a proxy shared by "hundreds if not thousands."
This argument fell apart recently on closer inspection, as the proxy they were claiming has edited nearly exclusively in Scientology topics.
The IP address in question belonged to the Church of Scientology.
For the reasons above, the accounts should be treated as sock/meat puppets and likely WP:ROLE accounts.

The evidence is very clear cut and Wikipedia policies are Wikipedia policies. I don't know why what should be a very, very simple event -- topic-banning interest-conflicted role accounts -- requires so much effort. There has been a lot of noise generated about other editors, but those have been content disputes. I see no reason not to cut through that noise and deal with the sock accounts, and one very good reason to do so: As long as editing is being done by accounts associated directly with the Church of Scientology, it is very difficult for other editors -- Scientologist and non-Scientologist alike -- to edit in the same area. And we shouldn't be expected to. --GoodDamon 22:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Justanother

Call it what you will. Reopening, calling for enforcement, whatever. Perhaps you are partially correct; the old ArbCom happened before I stumbled upon the Scientology articles in the first place, and there are no doubt all sorts of aspects to it I'm unaware of; it was huge and cumbersome, while the issue I perceive is clear-cut and simple. Perhaps there are good reasons why "many editors, one voice" was agreed upon, although they do not appear to have edited from a position of humility and acceptance of the notion that they are to be treated as a single account. --GoodDamon 23:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Shrampes

After reviewing User:Spidern's edits, I can see why you might initially mistake him/her as a single-purpose account, but even from the start, that account has edited in other areas, and has more recently been editing in more and more diverse fields. Don't mistake the user's initial area of interest as indicative of anything. Someone reviewing my edits at the beginning of my time in Wikipedia might mistake me as a single-purpose account as well. --GoodDamon 02:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, there is nothing inherently wrong with being a single-purpose account. Some people have just one area of interest, and as long as they don't possess an inherent conflict in that area, being a single-purpose account is fine. It's when there are SPA and COI issues combined that things become problematic, and for the record the only SPAs involved in this discussion that I am aware of are Shutterbug, Misou, and Bravehartbear. Justallofthem is borderline, but I wouldn't call him/her a single-purpose account. And I'm not familiar enough with the editing habits of the other parties to know one way or another. --GoodDamon 02:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I had the impression (on the other AE page) that Shutterbug is chased around for being a WP:SPA? It is my understanding that a conflict of interest is only of interest for the community if it damages the project. I am not familiar enough with the scope of Shutterbug's edits and I do not have the time to go through hundreds of edits. But if there is a damage for Wikipedia it must be possible to name it. Shrampes (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response 2

GoodDamon, User:Spidern is a member of Wikipedia since 6 weeks, has done 442 article edits, 372 on scientology and 35 not on scientology [13]. I got fooled until I took a look at the articles but it is that many. Along with that he has contributed 165 talk page edits, 152 on scientology. Maybe I am just a bit picky, but to me this is "a user account that edits either a single article, a group of related articles, or performs edits to a group of unrelated articles in the same manner on Wikipedia", or WP:SPA. Most of edits were to delete references or to add non-scholar sources. That sometimes has a certain value just as Shutterbug's or Cirt's edits have a certain value. As long as they are open about their affiliations there should be no problem. But why is Spidern not in this RFAR? Shrampes (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing something very important: The fact that Spidern is a relatively new editor is one of the things you need to take into account. Of course the majority of the edits he has done so far have been associated with Scientology; these are very active and involved pages, and demand significant attention from editors who are interested in Scientology. But you have to note that not only has Spidern edited in several other areas, he has also created several new pages. These are not the behaviors of a single-purpose account. Saying that the majority of his edits are in Scientology, and therefore he is a single-purpose account, is inaccurate. For comparison's sake, this is Shutterbug's edits. See the difference? Long-term involvement, with a singular focus. Now here are my edits. Once again, you can see that Scientology takes up some time, but if that looks like the editing history of a single-purpose account to you, I'm not sure what else there is to say. If anything, it's the editing history of someone who apparently likes to argue, but beyond that, I challenge you to find a pattern to my interests. I'm a pretty varied guy. --GoodDamon 05:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Shutterbug's argument

I just want to point out that Shutterbug's argument is essentially an attempt to invalidate the entire WP:SOCK policy. Now that, as Spidern points out below, there is another Church-owned IP address, this is starting to veer into WP:DUCK territory. --GoodDamon 16:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jossi

I do not know why Durova has named me as a party... I made a couple of comments at WP:AE, but that's all. I kindly ask the clerk to remove me as a party, as I am not. Thanks ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Justallofthem

This action was not at my request. Please note that all I asked of WP:AE was that "Cirt should minimally be strongly cautioned about maintaining WP:NPOV in the Scientology articles." I still strongly believe that.

However, seeing as we are here now: I have a very unique perspective on Cirt that is likely shared by very few. Cirt began editing here three or four usernames back, in 2006, a few months before I began, also a few name changes back for me. He originally edited in an NRM-related area and was quickly party to an arbitration related to his editing behavior which was closed with editing recommendations for all parties involved but no sanctions. In October 2006, Cirt moved over to Scientology articles, where I encountered him early on. Although our first few exchanges were cordial, I soon found him to be an aggressive POV-warrior with little care for the quality of his sources. Repeated experience with him right on up to the present has not much changed my mind about him. Cirt is a man with a mission. He is, and has always been, incredibly prolific and that prolificacy is, and always has been, exercised in the direction of forwarding a POV. I find it disturbing that admin Cirt is still "apologizing" for the exact same sort of "mistakes" that he "apologized" for in that first arbitration over two years and what, 60,000 edits? ago. I don't buy it. If the arbitration panel is interested in looking into the FULL history of ALL involved editors, then I am all for that. That history matters, especially in Cirt's case.

To FloNight

I agree that both of the issues raised at arbitration enforcement are well within the purview of that forum and of the remedies at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Proposed decision. There are two distinct issues. The first, brought by GoodDamon, relates to whether there is activity on the part of Shutterbug that violates the terms of the decision. I presented my opinion that there is none but am otherwise not involved in that issue. The other issue is the one I brought that asserts that Cirt has demonstrated repeatedly that his edits and interpretation of policy are skewed in the direction of his anti-Scientology POV to an unacceptable degree. Both of these can be addressed as enforcement of the existing conditions on Shutterbug and on the Scientology articles as a whole. The amount of evidence presented should, IMO, be seen as a positive, not as the negative that some would have it. As regards my mention that I found something else I wanted to bring up, I said it was "use of the admin bits", not misuse. Whether it was misuse will be for others to decide and even if it was misuse, it would likely be chalked up to another "honest mistake". I was going to present it not as damning evidence that Cirt should be de-sysoped but as simply another example of the heavy-handed and highly POV way that Cirt (talk · contribs) has settled himself over the Scientology articles. That is evident to any that look at his edit history in depth, disregarding the padding of non-controversial work such anti-vandalism (note though that he frequently calls what should be content dispute "vandalism" or "Page blanking, removal of content" when it comes from what might be a Scientology-sympathetic POV; witness this edit yielding this warning). --Justallofthem (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On GoodDamon's remark

GoodDamon makes a couple of points that do not hold up but I do not want to argue them as it simply comes down to rearguing a closed arbitration. I have said time and again that GoodDamon's enforcement issue is not enforcement at all but a call to redo the arbitration. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Spidern

You may want to slow down a bit on trying to prove your case in your opening statement. There will be plenty of opportunity if the arbitrators decide to hear this case. There are a number of things in those diffs that you present that I would take issue with including questionable calls as to whether an edit constitutes "pov-pushing" and bringing up a lot of material not directed related to Shutterbug or to Wikipedia, i.e. edits by Misou over on Wikinews for which he was sanctioned (while I would LOVE to talk about Wikinews, I am afraid that is beyond the range of this forum). Just my $0.02. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cirt

I wish things hadn't come to this point. I accepted Durova's suggestion to table non-urgent disputes until other issues were resolved. I do not believe I've misused the admin tools in any way. Yet if the Committee wishes to open a case, I welcome scrutiny. Whatever venue things take I'd just like to clear the air. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Vandenberg

I was reading this on WP:AE yesterday and felt the best outcome was to close it as "interesting, but sparse on anything actionable." The outstanding SSP and CU requests need to be completed, and the content problems need to go back to their respective talk pages.

The content dispute has been blown way out of proportion. For context, the majority of the concerns on WP:AE are regarding "Scientology and sex", a sub-article that focuses on one aspect of Scientology, and that article recently sent to AFD by user:Justallofthem; it was closed as "keep" on November 30 (basicly a WP:SNOW). In this light, adding reported issues about sex is to be expected, and it should be expected that it will go into controversies that have arisen over time. Those who prefer that we didnt have an article about this topic are going to need to accept the community disagrees strongly. Obviously the article needs to comply with all our policies, and some of Cirts additions are questionable, but the new material was removed, and has not been restored. It is a content dispute, and a minor one at that. If the two sides are unable to find compromise, they should request a WP:3O on specific issues, file a RFC or seek mediation (When I read the AE board last night, I thought Durova had offered mediation??).

fwiw, after reading the AE thread, I started to get involved to help restore stability.[14][15]

If there are wider issues to do with the actions of user:Cirt, a credible description of the problem needs to be compiled and taken to WP:RFC/U because there is nothing provided here now, nor was there any provided at WP:AE. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bravehartbear

I don't believe that the issues require arbitration. Tools like banning both editors in a dispute for a 24hrs period (for cool down) have not being used to the greatest extend possible. Also the extend of the dispute has not being determined properly. Being this a controversial issue very few editors can honestly maintain a NPOV and there is a lot of head bumping. What's really happening is that some editors that have that have a pro-Scientology inclination (posting mostly positive Scientology info) were gone for a few months and those editors that had a critical anti-Scientology inclination (posting mostly negative Scientology info) had a leave to create great changes in the pages with little monitoring. Now that the pro-Scientology inclined editors are back they are alarmed and the headbumping started. Right now consensus have been established in many issues in the main Scientology talk page. Because the page is frozen real talk is taking place. I say let the parties resolve this. The current management tools for dispute resolution need to be used before arbitration is even thought of. Bravehartbear (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrampes

I do not think that I should be on this list nor do I know much about scientology but I take the chance to tell my story: I was editing a couple of times in the Dianetics article. I then got reverted by Spidern when removing a source that had nothing to do with Dianetics at all. Spidern is an editor who edits only Scientology articles, removing sources and such. This strange occurrence drew my attention to Spidern's activities and finally tothis Arbitration page where I commented that the occurrences reminded me of a fight between WP:SPAs, Cirt being one of them, in a sense (Diff [16]. Several minutes(!) later Cirt informs me that I am a suspected sock puppet of "Highfructosecornsyrop" because - I assume - I edited in the article about HFCS. Unfortunately this is the only observation I can contribute, weird as it is. I cannot see that Cirt is abusing his Administrator tools but I share the POV that he is trying to discourage editors who do not share his POV while letting at least one WP:SPA (Spidern, who should be on this panel) go by. I would suggest to go through Cirts and Spiderns contributions and make an assessment on the quality and POV of his numerous edits. On the Dianetics article Spidern saw the point in the end. The article stands with my edits and the sources I found.Shrampes (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Spidern

I will openly admit that Scientology may have originally drawn me to Wikipedia as a motivation to edit; in parsing the main article I found many things that I took issue with from an editorial standpoint. That being said, I am moving into some other areas of interest as well. So I ask anyone that believes that my account to be single-purposed to consider my contributions outside of Scientology-related pages.

As being discussed by the editors working on the page at the time I first arrived, one significant problem with the Scientology page was its prominent use of primary sources. So being a fairly compulsive editor, I systematically rearranged the page in an intuitive attempt to improve it, removing secondary sources along the way. The quality of Scientology-related pages for the most part seems to have been compromised with the use of primary sources, which was an issue that I was working on (and still do, on a more limited basis). It must be noted, however, that promoting the use of secondary sources in the place of primary ones does not constitute a violation of WP:NPOV or WP:RS; quite to the contrary.

Now judging by the amount of effort that all of the involved editors put into WP:SCN, it sometimes becomes aggravating and counter-productive to deal with the unreasonable opposition we encounter. What we are dealing with here is not a persecution of editors due to their faith, but a situation where all available evidence suggests that individual editors closely connected with the Church of Scientology are attempting to cast it in a positive light. This is no different than employees of Microsoft editing the Windows Vista article.

As for the arbitration and eventual resolution of this matter, I ask that Arbitrators consider any prior evidence in addition to the actions taken by the parties in question which proceeded the original Arbitration ruling. Two particular edits are of interest: one from Dec 9, 2008 by 205.227.165.151 (talk) and the other occurring on May 9, 2007 by 205.227.165.244 (talk) (resolves to ws.churchofscientology.org). Both IPs are within the same class C range, which is owned by the Church of Scientology International. Historically, four more known Scientology-owned IPs performed edits almost entirely limited to Scientology-related pages, see 205.227.165.14 (talk • whois), 205.227.165.11 (talk • whois), 63.199.209.133 (talk • whois), and 63.199.209.131 (talk • whois). During January 2008, Misou (a confirmed sockpuppet on Wikipedia) was found by a checkuser on Wikinews to be using open proxies as well as IPs controlled by the Church of Scientology (Misou was subsequently banned). As recently as Oct 21, 2008, Shutterbug was banned from Wikinews for "disruptive behavior" and "Block evasion via proxies".

To conclude, I'd like to quote here a few points which were first illustrated by myself in the WP:AE thread: "Let the records show that it was found that there was indeed overlapping ip address usage belonging to a specific group of editors appearing to have a conflict of interest, who acted towards pushing a particular pov. Since those findings were announced, the pov-pushing (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10), assumption of bad faith, (11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18), and removal of reliable sources (19, 20, 21) has continued."

Response to Shrampes

To echo what GoodDamon (talk · contribs) said, SPA accounts are never truly an issue unless a COI is apparent. I make every effort possible to present my changes in a neutral way. If you believe that I am not doing so, please show me diffs which you believe to be indicative of a bias. Also, the claim that I reverted any of your edits on Dianetics is false. Furthermore, you falsely claimed that the source you removed was previously added by me, which I refuted on the talk page. ←Spidern→ 06:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Justallofthem

Perhaps I'm jumping the gun a little with presenting the evidence, it was intended to illustrate that arbitration action is clearly needed here. But I would also argue that the Misou case on Wikinews is every bit as relevant here, considering that we're dealing with the behavior of a user named as a party in this RFAR. ←Spidern→ 18:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by harej

What I have seen here are reports of sock puppetry, of role accounts, of biased editing, and of people yelling at each other because "the other guy" is wrong. Which is to be expected, as the subject at hand makes a perfect drama sandwich. I like my sandwiches to have fresh mozzarella.

This is a matter of editors being able to control themselves in the name of academia. I am not blaming anyone for being non-neutral, nor for being uncivil. Both things are perfectly human, but that does not make incivility and biased editing appropriate behavior for Wikipedia. That is what makes Wikipedia editing so hard. Those who have been accused/convicted of biased editing should admit to their faults and work extra hard to write in the "they're an organization that has done stuff" style; even those who think they are perfectly neutral should work extra-hard anyway, only because this is such a heated subject. I know I probably couldn't write neutrally on the matter of Scientology if I tried.

Which is what makes civil, cooperative behavior so important. Those who have seen me on IRC know that I put my feet in my mouth on a frequent occasion. That makes me an anti-example on how editors should behave while disputing encyclopedia content. (To be fair, I try to be on my best behavior when making a case for something on Wikipedia). I am calling on involved editors to take it seriously, but not personally, when accused of non-neutral editing. If you have reacted poorly in the past, try in the present now to keep your anger from Wikipedia. Punch the wall if you have to. All editors must work cooperatively for the wellness of the article, even if they disagree. This is something I take very seriously, and the ArbCom should move towards restoring an editing environment conducive to scholarly collaboration.

Inevitably, people are not going to try, and they will continue down a path of arrogance and non-cooperation. Those people should be removed from editing, whether from Scientology topics or Wikipedia as a whole. It will be painful, but Wikipedia benefits not from people who sour the environment of academia.

May I also note that the resolutions from the COFS case are pretty weak. "Anynobody prohibited from harassing Justanother"? No kidding!

--harej 03:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Will Beback

I urge the ArbCom to take this case. It appears to be a residue from the COFS case last year. It shows the problem with using article probation as a remedy. The ArbCom gets complex cases with extensive evidence and spends weeks to months considering the factors. Then, instead of bringing the matter to a final resolution, it tosses them back to the community. Rather than a decision by a small, cohesive committee, a probation remedy turns the unresolved disputes over to the relatively chaotic WP:AE. There, admins have a few days or a week to look at relatively little evidence and make the difficult decisions that the ArbCom didn't make when it had the chance. A recent, messy case involving civility parole is another example of what happens when problems aren't solved and are allowed to smolder along.

In this case, the unresolved issue is how to deal with single purpose, POV pushing accounts, some of which may be acting in concert. The community has made efforts to deal with the issue with proposals like Wikipedia:Tag team and Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. Now is a good time to find how these solutions can be brought to bear on the actual problems this project faces. Please, take the case and resolve it so it doesn't keep popping up again and again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Shutterbug

Yes, please take this case. I can do no edits without being attacked by either Cirt or somebody else who pulls up the unfinished "Arbitration" of last year like a dead pack rat. It sounded ok that time but it turns out to be too indistinct, too open for arbitrary attacks etc., especially since I found more time for edits again. I am not going to leave voluntarily and I will continue to use a) my own computer, b) public computers, c) my wireless laptop, d) computers in the Church of Scientology and any station I please. Why couldn't the old Arbitration decide on me "Scientology proxy issue"? Because it's a lie to say that "everyone using the same internet access MUST be the same person". This issue is so fluffed up, unbelievable, that I am happy to have another ArbCom. Apologies to the members of this one for the waste of time, but the last one left some things open which I only realize now. Shutterbug (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Comment, it is not clear to me why the Community can not resolve the matter with the existing sanctions and other options available to the Community? Can you spell that out more specifically. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Accept. Thanks for the additional comments, they were helpful. Will look at all involved users per usual practice. FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. I think there is all the history we could need to show that this area presents problems not typical of most content on the site. Even if it is only a matter of reviewing and consolidating material that has been covered in the past, it looks to me like a case in Arbitration, to consider the conduct of all named parties and any others, could be helpful. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept to consider allegations of co-ordinated editing and conflicts of interest, and also for a check of the efficacy of existing remedies on the COFS case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept to review current status of this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024
~~Mzajac~~	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	—	Case suspended

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Request to amend prior case: Bluemarine

Bluemarine arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Durova (talk · contribs) (initiator)
WJBscribe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)[17]
JMarkievicz2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[18]
Aatombomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[19]
Wjhonson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[20]

Statement by Durova

Bluemarine was banned for one year by the Arbitration Committee as a result of the case. Requesting that the Committee consider a very limited return to editing for the sole purpose of improving access to Wikipedia articles for people with disabilities.

Bluemarine (Matt Sanchez) is an editor in good standing at Wikimedia Commons and has been contributing useful material. Of particular interest is his voice recording work such as Image:Weimar.ogg - a reading of part of the Weimar Republic article. Recordings such as this one make Wikipedia more available to people who have vision impairments. Mr. Sanchez has an excellent voice and the site could use more contributions of this sort.

Given his history, this is not something to consider lightly. So I propose a very limited unblock for handicapped access purposes only, with myself as his mentor. Mr. Sanchez would be permitted to place encyclopedic audio files at articles unrelated to his previous conflicts. He may format audio file templates and caption those audio files and may edit his own user space. That is all. LGBT issues, broadly defined, would be off limits.

During the early part of Mr. Sanchez's siteban he did sock and was aggressive toward other editors he had been in conflict with. So it's understandable if they have concerns or even outright opposition to this proposal. I have instructed him to refrain from responding if any conflict resumes. "Make it my problem," I told him. He agreed. When I found out he was socking earlier this year and asked him to stop, he pledged to. There has been no problem in that regard since April 1. So with a bit less than four months remaining on the clock for his ArbCom ban, I think this is a reasonable proposal. Hoping others agree. Durova^Charge! 06:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the suggestion of an editor I'll make this clear: yes, Bluemarine would remain prohibited from his own biography article. Durova^Charge! 22:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To AniMate, preventing a resumption of old problems is a very high priority. The problems occurred primarily at one article and over one topic. Bluemarine will remain under a very tight restriction--unable to go to that article or anything like it, unable to edit in a normal sense, and unable to interact with other editors except at his own user talk. If you see loopholes in that, please articulate what they are so I may modify this proposal and close them. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 00:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

I think most requests to lift bans on condition of strict mentorship should be approved on a trial basis. At the first instance of trouble, the ban can be reinstated. I recommend that any uninvolved administrator be allowed to reinstate the ban if necessary, and the editor should be resticted from going anywhere near the areas where they formerly caused disruption. It is far better to have troubled users on the path to return under close supervision than have them sock puppeting or causing disruption through off site means. Jehochman2 (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AniMate

I'm opposed to this motion. Bluemarine wasn't banned for his article contributions. He was banned for rampant incivilty and homophobic personal attacks. Looking through his contributions, there are a total of 9 edits to any talk pages at Wikimedia Commons, and those are from February. Unfortunately, Duova's request does nothing to address the concerns about his behavior.--A ni Mate 23:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Horologium

I am strongly opposed to this motion. I was the only editor who provided diffs at the RFA which documented the harassment of Sanchez (and it was a rather extensive collection), so it's fair to say that I'm not opposing due to personal animus. (Discounting the personal attacks by Sanchez after I started blocking his socks after the ban went into effect.) However, I feel that he is not suited to working collaboratively, which is essential here. His contributions to commons are by their nature non-collaborative; they improve the project but do not require interaction with other editors.

In addition to his attacks on LGBT editors and his harassment of other editors through sockpuppets, he has demonstrated poor judgement; after being unblocked to participate in the arbitration case, he made a beeline towards Waterboarding, which at the time was heading toward an an arbitration case of its own. This was after he had been explicitly instructed that the only pages he was to edit were his user pages and the arbitration case pages. He proved unable to comply with the guidelines then, and there is no indication that he will be able to do so now. I have had misgivings about dealing with the issue when the ban was set to expire; I really don't think we should move it forward. Horologium (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

The arrangement proposed by Durova seems acceptable; so long as he stays well away from the topics and users around which the previous conflict revolved, I see no reason why Bluemarine cannot be permitted to do some useful wiki-gnoming. Kirill ^(prof) 16:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting more comments, but at first review the idea seems reasonable. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and offer a motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

For this motion, there are 13 active Arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.

This committee's decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine and the preexisting community ban of Bluemarine (talk · contribs) are modified solely to the extent that Bluemarine is unblocked for the limited purpose of his making contributions related to increasing the accessibility of Wikipedia to users with handicapping conditions. This includes uploading encyclopedic audio files, formatting audio file templates, and captioning those audio files, as well as editing his userpage and talkpage, all under the mentorship of Durova (talk · contribs). Except as expressly provided in this motion, the ban on editing by Bluemarine remains in effect. If Bluemarine violates the terms of his limited unblock, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. If Bluemarine complies with these conditions for a period of 60 days, a request for further modification of his ban may be submitted.

Support:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the additional comment that the case also found that Bluemarine had himself been harassed. Users are directed to read the below motion concerning Abtract; in the event that this motion passes, any resumption of harassment of Bluemarine will not be overlooked. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And support Sam Blacketer's additional comment as well. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^(prof) 03:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would have wanted longer as evidence (90 not 60 days); but also, would be more open to earlier return to other non-contentious areas. Probably balances out in the end. Hence support. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Request for clarification : Peter Damian

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

Joopercoopers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified
Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) notified
Tznkai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) notified

I've also notified out of courtesy; FT2, Jimbo Wales and David Gerard

Statement by Joopercoopers

Peter Damian was given a limited unblock by Thatcher in the last 24hrs on the conditions:

He may edit within his own user space.
He may edit WP:RFAR and any associated pages (including arbitrators' talk pages, if appropriate) for the specific and limited purpose of appealing his ban and requesting an unconditional (or less conditional) unblock.
He may contribute to and offer comments on FT2's discussion of "the situation" (Damian's edits to the Arbcom 2007 election, subsequent block, oversight, etc) at whatever page FT2 designates.
He may not edit other pages without permission of Arbcom.
Any harassment or wikihounding of FT2 shall be grounds for reimposition of the indefinite ban.
Any admin may re-impose Jimbo's block for violation of these conditions.
These conditions will remain in force until vacated by Arbcom.

He has since been blocked for attempting to improve the encyclopedia in mainspace. To my knowledge Peter's mainspace contributions weren't fundamentally at issue and he is widely regarded as a good content contributor. Have we only invited him back to participate in drama and/or dispute resolution, or whilst he's here should we allow him to contribute? I respectfully ask the committee to allow him to edit mainspace. Thanks --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peter Damian II

[Moved from talk page by Viridae. Peter was unable to post here because of the semi protection.]

First, I apologise for contributing to the confusion over what were the terms of my unblock. There were originally two versions of this: one was the 'enough rope to hang with' version originally proposed by Thatcher. This was the one I had thought had prevailed until tonight. I honestly did not notice the new 'terms' proposed on my very busy talk page when I came home last night. Why would I return to Wikipedia otherwise than to edit articles?

I am happy to return to editing on the condition that FT2 and I are able to tread entirely divergent paths. That was what I thought I had agreed with Thatcher earlier, anyway. That includes FT2 not leaving sanctimonious and patronising and self-praising messages on my talk page. It is my view that he is an unmitigated disaster for Wikipedia, but many other people are now beginning to see that, let them carry the torch, I shall step aside from the madness of Wikipedia politics.

I am not interested in a public debate with FT2, as I have already stated on my talk page. I just want him to avoid me entirely. That includes not banning good editors such as Headley (I am happy if Thatcher or some other disinterested admin can look after that matter). It also includes him not interfering with my work on articles related tangentially to linguistics such as Neurolinguistic programming. Can I simply point out my PhD is in a linguistics related area? Peter Damian II (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title fixed by - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by William M. Connolley

He has since been blocked for attempting to improve the encyclopedia in mainspace. - wrong: and it would be nice if you could show more respect for Tznkai. More accurately, he has since been blocked for violating condition 4 of the unblock parole. He was fully aware of this condition, and chose to break it, which is hardly a good sign William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: PD has resumed editing outside his parole, after an explicit warning. I conclude that he is deliberately violating it, and have re-blocked him for 12h. In my opinion Thatchers parole conditions are quite clear, and have been re-affirmed below, as has his desire to "punt the matter to arbcomm". Two arbs have commented below, but neither has explicitly suggested any variation in Thatchers conditions, so I believe they are still in force. I hope that other arbs will express an opinion on this matter, possibly even paying some attention to the numerous complains of slowness that have previously been raised William M. Connolley (talk)

Statement by Thatcher

I believe (I hope) that this matter is already before Arbcom-L.

See my unblock message here for additional background.

Peter Damian created his new account Peter Damian II (talk · contribs) and began editing before he had been notified of a formal unblocking and before his old accounts were unblocked. He was immediately blocked. When I was available to do so, I unblocked his accounts and prepared to write an unblock message contain some minimal conditions. However, after I unblocked the accounts but before I could compose my message, I was contacted by FT2, who strongly objected to the conditions I had proposed and pressed me to either leave Damian blocked until an agreement could be reached (notwithstanding the agreement I thought had already been reached) or to unblock but impose a series of topic restrictions to which I was opposed. If Damian had not jumped the gun, this could probably have been handled by email with merely an additional 24-48 hour delay in the unblocking. However, as Damian had jumped the gun, and as I had been contacted at just the wrong moment, I found myself forced into a corner. I could not leave things as they were, and I could not do what I originally planned to do. Therefore I restricted Damian to his user space and RFAR pending further word from Arbcom.

I note also that FT2 wants to prepare an explanation of all the events surrounding Damian's original blocking, the oversight, Damian's claims against FT2, and so forth. It is his right to do so, and I understand why he still feels aggrieved, but I have advised him to let the matter go, and I advised Damian not to contribute to the discussion, as FT2 seems to get under his skin in a way that other editors and admins don't.

I have never had a problem with Damian's content contributions. FT2 feels that after Damian's first block and reincarnation as "Peter Damian" this spring, that Damian began targeting topics formerly edited by FT2 that Damian had never before shown an interest in. FT2 feels this is a case of Wikihounding. FT2 also believes Damian is taking advice from banned user HeadleyDown (talk · contribs) and acting as his proxy. I understand why FT2 feels he was being targeted by Damian, and I agree there is an appearance of targeting at least in some edits, but Damian is a smart guy and was willing to take responsibility for the edits that were being suggested, so I think the charge of proxying for a banned user is not as clear-cut as FT2 thinks it is. FT2 asked me to restrict Damian from editing a broad list of topics for the reasons of Wikihounding and proxy editing; this is one of the conditions that I objected to.

It was my judgement that Damian should be unblocked with the understanding that he was being given enough rope to hang himself with. Damian has done a number of things since the original block in December 2007 that he needs to not do again in order to regain/retain his editing privileges. Either he understands this and will be able to edit, or he does not, in which case someone will eventually ban him again. I felt I was unable to act on my judgement, so I restricted Damian to his user space and RFAR and punted the matter to Arbcom. Perhaps I simply chickened out. Thatcher 21:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting meta-governance issue

Now that I've had a chance to think about it, this situation presents an interesting problem in meta-governance issues. I, as an admin, placed certain restrictions. In theory, any other admin could overturn or modify those restrictions, just as any admin can overturn or modify a block or page protections, subject to the normal requirement to discuss the matter first--either with the admin who took the initial action, or via some other means to attempt to gauge consensus in the matter. However, both the original block message by Jimbo, and FT2 as an aggrieved party, have invoked Arbcom. Now, William Connolley has indicated that he will personally enforce a more lenient set of conditions, although he states other admins may act differently and he does not take the further step of formally modifying the conditions himself. Further, there is at least one case I know where the community nullified an Arbcom topic limit by declining to enforce it. Several admins have posted to this topic (including Bishzilla's big sister). At this point in the process, could a sufficiently bold admin modify the unblocking conditions without Arbcom approval? If so, is there any admin willing to do so? (Small-minded tangential comment: Several admins have voiced support for Damian after my unblock, where were they last month? Actually unblocking Damian was harder than just cheerleading, wasn't it?) Thatcher 21:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding FT2's condition #1

There is no doubt that Peter Damian's response to FT2's block of Phdarts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was outrageous and out of bounds. However, I find I must adjust my own position on the block in this respect; it was not best practice of FT2 to do so. If I am going to stay true to the principles I have argued in a more recent case, I have to say that it would have been better for FT2 to request the assistance of another checkuser in identifying and then blocking Phdarts. However, the fact that it was not best practice does not make it against policy and does not excuse Damian's over the top reaction.

Moving forward, I have concerns with condition #1. We do not normally ban content, but behavior. HeadleyDown behaved badly and was banned; FT2 detected Phdarts based on his behavior and follwed-up with a checkuser to confirm. However, should we ban all editors who share HeadleyDown's point of view? I have always felt that the concept of proxy editing turned on behavior. If someone is reinstating the edits of a banned user in the same manner and with the same disruptive behavior, that editor can be blocked as a proxy editor, in my opinion. However, if a second editor is taking advice from a banned user but is willing to stand behind his edits as his own, and more importantly is willing to following community norms of consensus editing, sourcing, and dispute resolution, I see very little problem there. I am therefore not clear on the reason for the proposed topic restrictions. Was Peter Damian editing the topics in a disruptive manner? Thatcher 23:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Enric Naval

*sigh* so much wikidramah. I ask the Arbcom to unblock him for the sake of the project so he can edit mainspace, on the condition that he will re-banned ipso facto if he brings up the oversighted edits again. Also, a ban from interacting with TF2 or commenting about him could be appropiate. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.D.: As rootology said, FT2 should asked not to interact with him either, as the dynamics between the two of them will cause cause the issue to explode again --Enric Naval (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Privatemusings

what enric said. Really guys - an arb should propose, and the committee should pass a quick motion lifting the ban, and separating FT and PD and the wiki wins. Or just copy this;

Motion re Peter Damian

1) Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is unbanned.

2) Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and FT2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are instructed to make an effort to avoid all contact with each other.

Privatemusings (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

A ban does not suggest that an editor is unable to make useful edits; it simply means that the disruption outweighs the positives to an unacceptable extent. Yesterday I was reviewing the ArbCom results and discovered to my surprise that Peter Damian had attempted to vote on a candidacy. He linked to his old user account, which stated that time time that he was banned by Jimbo Wales. So I struck through his attempted vote per WP:BAN.

I was and am concerned about the integrity of our election process; a different issue regarding the elections had reached the administrators' noticeboard the day before. It turned out that Peter had jumped the gun and exceeded the very limited terms that Thatcher had negotiated, although during the interim a fair bit of confusion arose between several longstanding contributors. A few of the exchanges were heated and I regret my part in that.

Now Peter Damian has exceeded Thatcher's terms again, and Peter's unblock request fails to acknowledge the legitimacy of the blocking rationale. If Peter wishes to persuade consensus that his presence is a net gain this is not the way to do it; a conservative and modest approach in strict accordance with the unblock terms would inspire more confidence. Unfortunately his recent antics probably also have the effect of reducing the pool of people who would give serious attention to his claims regarding FT2.

That said, I see no actual need for the Committee to intervene. FT2 has invited Peter to present his criticisms and evidence onsite; Peter can do that via a transclusion template even if all of his accounts are blocked, as long as one of his user talk pages remains unprotected. So an adequate solution is merely a technical matter.

Since Peter's editing status has come under broader consideration, it's been high drama so far and the proposals here are unlikely to succeed. Everyone knows that Peter can contribute useful content. But can he accept limitations? Every seasoned contributor has been on the short end of consensus discussions and accepts those outcomes. All of us encounter no in some form. Peter has demonstrated a distinctly aggressive response to limitations. It is unreasonable to suppose he would become more collaborative if the Committee validates his persistent refusal to respect his ban or keep his word. The rest of the community is not a testing ground for shaky hypotheses; we are encyclopedia editors--not guinea pigs. I'd like to see him back as much as anyone; he has much to offer. But on principle I go for the opposite approach. Let him sit on the sidelines an appropriate period of time, then ease his restrictions in stages and under mentorship. I've seen much better results that way. Durova^Charge! 03:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion from rootology

If Peter has said he understands what went wrong now, and just wants to get back to editing articles and avoiding FT2, and FT2 wants to avoid Peter, why not just ask them to both just avoid/recuse from each other on anything (if someone has to Arb or Admin on Peter, it's not like we have any great shortage of people) so that everyone can get back to what they do best and end any silly drama? Probably just a quick up and down motion from the AC confirming that Peter is unblocked and asked to avoid FT2, and FT2 is asked to avoid Peter, and then a year of drama goes away and we get back a good content writer and free up FT2 to do his AC stuff on other issues. There is proof that such things work, asking parties to just avoid each other. FT2 actually suggested himself the very same solution in regards to myself and the other fellow in August...

It's going to be hard for him if he gets addressed with critical or skeptical comments whilst trying to reacquaint himself with editing. That tends to be hard for anybody. I think your point's made, that you have concerns whether he should be considering proposing remedies, but I'd ask that the concern is dropped. It's been stated a few times; doubtless noted too. He'll have a fair chance, same as anyone else unblocked. If you'd be able to avoid interacting with him, it would possibly make it easier on him to avoid interacting back with you as well. - FT2

...and it's worked out pretty darn well, I think. If everyone is willing to suck it up for the good of everyone else, then a year from now this could be a historical footnote and nothing more. rootology (C)(T) 22:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for NYBrad Isn't it just a question of whether this is a Jimmy Wales block, an AC block, or a community-level block? It has to be one of those three, since there is no other one it could be. If it's Jimmy/AC under "today's" rules, the AC can decide if it's going to unblock or not; if it's a community-level the block, the AC can unblock, or the admins can. Under what other possible scenario could he be blocked? rootology (C)(T) 02:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tznkai

I stumbled across this situation after the initial stage of back and forth block and unblock had proceeded, and the unblock conditions had been established. Peter Damian had voted before those unblock conditions were made clear, with the confusion described by Thatcher. I familiarized myself as best I could with the timeline of events with the Peter Damian II account, and then in my judgment as an unofficial election clerk, administrator, and plain old Wikipedian, I felt that Peter Damian did not have suffrage (yet) for this election, so I indented to votes and left a message on Damian's page to that extent, and watchlisted the page in case Damian responded. In the meantime a number of other editors had what I will politely call a back and forth on the Peter Damian II talk page. I left this message which I now regret targeting solely at Peter Damian. After that, I noticed a conversation betwween Peter Damian and MBisanz concerning an autoblock, apparently Peter Damian had attempted to edit the Medieval philosophy article. I asked Peter Damian to clarify if his unblock terms had changed, did so again/warned him when he ignored me and continued to edit. Peter Damian gave what I felt was a rather unhelpful response, had continued to edit past my warning, so I then blocked him for violation of his unblock terms.

In response to the inevitable accusation of process wonkery: I'm pretty much guilty. I think process can be important. I think everyone following process can make things all sorts of easier to solve. Especially with users under restrictions, a user actually following their restrictions tends to alleviate the concerns that come with unblocking a formerly banned user. Peter Damian needs to work within rules, not just to prevent any disruption he may cause, but to gain the trust of the broader community. Should he have to? I don't know. I do think however, it works much better he does.--Tznkai (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update:16:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Peter Damian edited the Dark Ages talk page, was warned and then blocked by William M. Connolley. I've asked WMC to unblock Peter Damian, and have also suggested to Peter Damian a way to move forward on that particular issue. As it stands currently, I believe that there is an explicit and easy to follow editing restriction on Peter Damian, and we'll move so much faster and cleaner on this if he would follow that restriction until it is overturned or modified. I personally have no objection to the terms being modified in general, but I'm not exactly eager to modify terms while they're being violated willfully, as it appears is happening now. I don't know a thing about Peter Damian's article contribution - I don't particularly care to look, I assume he is useful there and that my fellow Wikipedians are correct when they suggest it is not at issue. I just think he should stop violating his terms so we can get to the business of fixing them.--Tznkai (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My position in summary:

Peter Damian needs to stop violating his terms, which at this point do not include anything in main or article talk space.
Blocks are the logical consequence to Peter Damian's actions, and the two short ones so far implemented are reasonable, if not always desirable.
The Committee should review Peter Damian's editing terms and modify them to allow some sort of article editing OR specifically refer the matter to the Community (Please don't, see below)
The regular cast of Wikipedians surrounding Peter Damian and related fora and subsequent drama should kindly stay the hell out of it. I'll leave myself if so desired.
Whatever is decided should attempt to give both Peter Damian and FT2 some sort of piece of mind and ability to work in the environment - vindication however, should be the lowest of all priorities. If one or both is unwilling to bury the hatchet (I do not care who) I would like both of them to at least stop talking about it for the time being.--Tznkai (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FT2

I am preparing a statement to illustrate both the (noticeably narrow) topic area restrictions requested for peace, and the need for those restrictions. These do not impinge on Damian's historic mainspace areas of editing. They should not impede good faith editing, and are narrowly drawn with good reason for each. These are 3 specific topic areas that I would consider evidenced as being likely to be edited by Damian:

As reflection/continuation/provocation/confrontation, or
To advance the BATTLEGROUND agenda of another multiple-banned user whose lead Damian has followed on multiple occasions.

~~I will aim to post it tomorrow.~~ Posted below. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement

Without recapping on everything, and focussing just on the mainspace restriction. Damian was blocked for a range of fairly serious and unwarranted abuse, from defamation downwards. He has repeatedly promised to cease, but has broken each of those promises. In some cases excuses were given, but the reality is, he has agreed to drop it but failed. Most times he "pushed the envelope" he denied that his actions breached any past promise or agreement. This led to a situation where more and more admins became reluctant to act on his actions. Indeed some were not sure what to believe, as I had avoided commenting to try and prevent a resurgence. He had multiple chances, and none was kept. Not one person who has reviewed the case, from Jimbo downwards, has endorsed that his behavior was warranted, and most have asked him to cease. Jimbo finally gave up on him a month or so ago, in an email sequence I was copied in on by himself and Damian (but did not participate in).

As a result, this time I would hope for a formal limit to be set, to prevent 1/ editing on three toxic areas (broadly psychology, pseudoscience, sexuality) as evidenced below, and 2/ any return to past "targeted" behaviors as evidenced by past breaches. These would be quite narrowly drawn and would not impinge on his historic areas of interest, and would be quite sufficient for peace.

Evidence of conduct following "second chances"

The behavior is that every unblock given on good faith or on promise of improvement or cessation, was followed by a return to this behavior. Most block appeals were marked by either at least one dishonest statement to present the request for unblock in a more favorable light, or by reneging afterwards. Examples:

Unblock of Dec 4 2007:

Basis of block - Blocked 17:28 Dec 4 ("Smear campaign") [21].

Statements made in obtaining agreement to unblock - Post by Damian to secure unblock 18:59 ("OK I'm sorry for that. I will delete it and promise to make no further remarks of that sort if you remove the block. Please.") [22], and 19:34 Dec 4 ("Yes of course I agree. It was a momentary aberration. I apologise again") [23]. Accordingly unblocked 19:37 Dec 4 ("User agrees to stop the aggressive canvassing that resulted in the block") [24].

Conduct after unblock - Unblock followed by repeated pointy questions (questions that tended to imply wrongdoing to a reader, see presumptive questions and answers 41 (a)-(c)), Damian argued to be allowed to ask further such questions, another admin advised instead to drop it having voted [25][26], argued and spiralled [27][28], moved to accusations of being bullied [29][30], recommences canvassing [31][32][33], told by various users to cool down [34]. Frustrated at not being allowed by admins watching the election, to ask his further questions, he switched back, resuming his original allegations (the ones he had agreed were "abberations" and "promised" to be "dropped" to procure unblock), began posting advocative posts on them on-wiki 21:33 - 21:41 [35][36][37], and also escalated them by contacting third party "organizations" and websites about them. 21:44 Dec 5 [38]. This was a reference to the same topics he had "promised" to drop as being a "momentary abberation" question reply, and said to be part of a conversation with Giano whom he asserts he "know[s] of old" as "a sort of Wikipedia friend" same diff.

(Further follow-up - Original blocking admin raised concerns 22:19 Dec 5 ("While initially I think your unblock was a good one, based on [Damian's] recent comments I think it is not turning out so well... he appears to have moved his campaign to e-mail, and has 'contacted the relevant organisations', whatever that is supposed to mean") [39]. Admin expresses concerns this is moving beyond the community's ability to resolve [40], Damian states 07:47 Dec 6 that he will "pursue this whole thing outside Wikipedia" [41], writes an off-wiki blog post (which breaches no personal attacks and is both highly defamatory and highly misrepresentative) admitted as being sent to at least one third party, and links to it on-wiki 09:19 Dec 6 [42], and responds to Giano's warning that attacking is wrong, the allegations very serious, and to be "101% sure" before continuing [43] by stating he is (12:39 Dec 6) "100% sure of the facts" [44]. At this point he is reblocked 12:43 Dec 6 [45])

Unblock of 13:15 Dec 6 2007:

Basis of block - See above. Rightly or wrongly the above threats were made to "contact organizations" and were construed as being within no legal threats.

Statements made in obtaining agreement to unblock - Damian stated that he had intended to "contact organizations" but clarified he had not meant legal authorities [46][47] ("obviously I withdraw the legal threat, if that was how it was construed. It wasn't, in fact, a threat."), and at 13:07 "in any case I have withdrawn the threat" [48]. In response to being told that he must withdraw all threats of "authorities" of a legal or quasi-legal nature [49] he responds 13:14 Dec 6 "Ok I no longer plan to pursue in any context." [50], and 13:15 "Now please unblock" [51]. Accordingly unblocked at 13:15 Dec 6 ("legal threat withdrawn") [52] and "Thank you for stating that, I've unblocked you account and you're free to edit" [53].

Conduct after unblock - An admin reblocks him (14:53 Dec 6), apparently for the same legal threats and harassment 14:56 Dec 6 [54]. At 09:35 Dec 6 Damian had sent an email stating "I am posting at various activist sites, and spreading the word." Damian protests he has removed his off-wiki defamation post (15:14 Dec 6) [55]; the admin says that in view of the seriousness and legal/defamation concerns he would rather ask the Foundation to review Damian's case anyhow [56]. Damian states he has promised to drop everything and remove everything [57]. The admin lays down conditions that would resolve this (basically providing information where his defamation has been posted so its removal can be checked, a clear statement of withdrawal and apology written for myself and any third parties, and complete "leaving alone") [58]. I don't have full information here; what is evidenced is the bottom line: 1/ Damian was asked to show he genuinely meant it this time by means of providing information and formally withdrawing all allegations and external defamations, 2/ these were easy requests to meet if genuine, 3/ Damian clearly did not try to comply with even the easiest of these conditions (no apology for the defamation, no details of "organisations contacted" or "sites posted" for example), and 4/ the block was left standing.

Edits of March 16 2008

Circumstances - Block evasion, "just decided to return" [59]. Advised "This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales has invited you to discuss this block and circumstances that resulted in it. Alternatively, I recommend you contact Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>. You may not create a new account to avoid this block" [60].

Response to notice of block and misrepresentations made to obtain unblock - Ignored the above (and reblocked [61]). Claimed this was fair since he had "stayed away from any controversial area" [62]. In reality, Damian had not "stayed away" at all. He had actually spent almost the entire intervening time (December to February/March) continuing exactly the same types of allegation he said he would "drop" and were an "aberration". As before he had been escalating them (there are posts on WR by Damian in that time frame, alleging some kind of cult involvement.)

Unblock of May 2 2008

Circumstances - Arbcom appeal [63].

Background of obtaining agreement to unblock - I requested (forcibly) not to be copied in on Arbcom's deliberations. Hence I have no idea what conditions if any were required, nor opportunity to present concerns to the committee about his conduct. I requested that the appeal be heard on-wiki (subject to measures protecting Damian's privacy) and was declined. Damian was sent an email with the following text: "Your unblocking IS conditional on you returning to normal productive editing and stopping the harassment and smear campaign. Many good editors edit controversial topics--if they did not, our articles on X would be edited solely by X-ists, for example. Statements of the form, "You edited X so you must be Y" constitute personal attacks and coarsen the environment for all editors." Although unblocked May 2, my question about presentation of evidence was first responded on May 5: "WJScribe and Peter Damian are getting their evidence together. When we get it I will let you know." This promise was not kept and the concerns were allowed to slide even though by that time, barely 3 days after unblock, renewed conduct issues had already become visible.

Conduct after unblock - Within 3 days of unblock (when I was still being told it was under discussion), Damian had already started to visit the topic area of Neuro-linguistic programming, an area he had never previously edited but which he believed I was strongly involved. This was almost certainly fed to him by a banned user who had long sought to proxy edit on that area again (see below) and whom 1/ Damian associated with, 2/ I had repeatedly removed from that area for POV warring, and 3/ had an Arbcom case and subsequent site ban related to sock-puppetry and POV warring.
In other words, not even 3 days after unban, Damian had dug up old areas I had edited, and (in collaboration with a serious vandal with a past history of POV warring at that topic) had begun targeting those (WP:HOUND).

Unblock/reblock of July 1 2008

Circumstances - Phdarts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked as a reincarnation of a virulent arbcom-and-community-banned POV warrior, HeadleyDown. HeadleyDown had previously sought to POV war on sexuality (zoophilia under 3 or more different socks, moving to pedophilia in December). Damian "went ballistic", alleging support of pro-pedophilia editing. This was deeply offensive. Thatcher's comment probably says it all: [64]. A request was posted for evidence [65], which led to these two posts Alex B. Thatcher. That evidence is available.
What is notable is, 1/ Damian was co-editing with a known community-banned POV warrior, on NLP and extreme forms of sexuality, 2/ these were precisely the topics that user had been pried off POV editing before (sexuality, psychology, pseudoscience), 2/ when the POV warrior was blocked, tried to thwart this by means of "smear" type accusations. In fact the user concerned is recognized as a serious and persistent source of harm to the project by many users over a period of several years, and known to recruit users I have blocked by email (3 previous times now, Damian is the 4th, all evidenced on-wiki).
As with all HeadleyDown behavioral evidence, if asked I will demonstrate via email that a number of Damian's edits were proxies for banned user HeadleyDown to return to his targetted area "by the back door". Specifically, 1/ HeadleyDown has tried to recruit people to edit these topics before (documented and provable), and 2/ on several occasions, editing matters that are very specific to HeadleyDown, including those mentioned in previous arbcom and checkuser decisions from 2005-06, turn up in Damian's edits on HeadleyDown's preferred target topic areas - sexuality, psychology, pseudoscience.
The project does not need to endorse topic editing by someone who 1/ has strong grudges, 2/ with very strong advocative views and "something to prove", 3/ who follows in the mentorship of a banned POV warrior, 4/ moving into sensitive areas of that banned user's preference such as pedophilia, or areas that banned user has repeatedly tried to return to such as pseudoscience/psychology, and 5/ when so editing, repeating edits based upon ideas of that banned user.

Other behaviors

In the context of a year-long campaign of confrontational smear campaigning, the following are worth noting:

Aug 11 posts a "Dear FT2", POINTily worded as the "good-faith guardian and defender of the NLP pages" that he wishes to AFD all such pages [66]. In fact I have barely edited any of these since 2005-06, over 2 years ago, a fact checkable by anyone, save for brief administrative interventions once or twice.

Sept 4-5 (see User talk:FT2#user:Phdarts, may be collapse-boxed): Another user in an unrelated inquiry, asks me to look at User:Nocturnalsleeper, as a possible sock-puppet [67]. I identified this as one of about 80 - 90 sock-puppets being operated by an unconnected sock-user on pedophilia related topics [68]. Damian states that the user should not be blocked 18:20 Sept 4 ("I wouldn't if I were you, i.e. want to avert nuclear war... So, FT2, don't even think of it, OK?") [69], 18:22 ("What is FT2 up to now") [70], 00:44 Sept 5 Thatcher confirms the sock ring [71]. He later confirms and blocks another 35 socks 03:56 Sept 6 [72]. Damian's response to my block of this prolific sock-puppeteer is "Let war commence" [73] and "Next step is ANI, next step after that is Sloan Foundation [a WMF donor] and so on" [74]. Damian's final post on the thread alleges "banning or blocking those who disagree with your POV", and posting of "nonsense psychobabble and unsourced promotion of dubious sexual practices" [75]. A final post references Stalin's right hand henchman and mass murderer Lavrentiy Beria [76].

Sept 17 - After Jimbo's ban, Damian appealed to Jimbo himself. I was copied in on some of this (Sept-Oct 2008), but again, did not participate. In summary Jimbo points out that the very appeal email where Damian claimed to never have made defamatory allegations, included just that. Jimbo described the email as "astonishingly rude".

Evidence of poor editing or proxying for banned POV warrior (at times done to prove a point) on targeted areas

(Will add tomorrow)

Statement to Arbitrators on requested editing restriction and and banned user "HeadleyDown"

I ask that the Committee take the requested restriction more seriously than they might think, and will evidence this shortly (collating data right now). Before being an arbitrator, I was first a very experienced administrator with 7 - 8 months of experience on this user and their activities after his final Arbcom mentors' ban (prior to my RFA), and 2 years since RFA. In the same sense that some are "expert" on Grawp and some of our ex-arbs are "experts" on the pedo sock farms, HeadleyDown is the edit warrior I am probably most familiar with of any administrator or Checkuser on the wiki. A large number of users have raised his socks as consistent concerns, he's had multiple arbcom related and community bans over the years; it's far from just "my word on it". The blocks issued in the first year after his ban were issued by other admins and checkusers, not myself, meaning I had to collate evidence, and also it had to convince others. He has a very well established history of recruiting others (especially discontent users) to make subtle "slanting" posts, post his preferred material, or take slanted POV views for him.

At this point, Damian is associating with, collaborating with, and evidenced as adopting the approach of, this banned user in topic areas that banned user had subtly POV warred and has tried repeatedly to return to, since his ban in 2006. Headley's editing is not a small problem. It's not requested lightly. This is an ex-user who should not be permitted in any way to edit those areas, whether directly or through others with points to make. I put it that strongly, as an experienced editor.

I am collating evidence as stated. If asked, I will also add summary evidence on HeadleyDown, if current arbitrators are unfamiliar or believe this view to be over-stated or less than accurate, in any way whatsoever.

Evidence of what exactly Damian was alleging in December

Presented in private to Arbcom (will send tomorrow), as is common for defamation issues. CC'ed to Peter Damian. In brief, this was far from being "mild" and he has changed his "story"; it was a lot more serious than Damian has represented publicly, and he has been untruthful and misrepresented it ever since. If I am mis-stating this, or the evidence I present by email does not clearly show the Committee that this is an accurate statement or reasonable interpretation, I would like a specific comment by Arbcom to that effect. Otherwise let this comment stand.

I also ask formally that I am not CC'ed into any Arbcom discussion of this request (as a party). I requested the same in May. I will be filtering them out regardless in case of mishap.

Requested restrictions

Damian's behaviors have been somewhat stressful, for an unusual reason:- as a party, I have had to restrict myself to avoid all interaction on them wherever possible and allow Damian the freedom to act and speak as desired on this rather than just confront the behavior. Still the behaviors continue. I'd like that to end. I have no interest in Damian otherwise, nor have ever had. Requested restrictions to keep the peace in light of past history:

Peter Damian to be restricted from editing on just the three areas he has never historically edited, and which are inspired largely by this dispute - psychology (including fringe psychology), pseudoscience, and sexuality. In each of these, problems are evidenced.
Avoidance of all contact and discussion, on and off site, including by inference or "hinting/alluding" (he's done this a lot), "wikihounding". Peter Damian should avoid behaviors that may be interpreted as harassment, provocation or confrontation, on or off wiki, per Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment.
Effective enforcement provisions so this need never come up again, bearing in mind the extended history of doing so (and persistently gaming the system).

Significance of #1:

Damian and I have not had issues on his main areas of content. For example, he seems to enjoy history and philosophy, I've not been hugely active in the kinds of matters he edits. In fact the only areas of content we might fall out on seem to be those related to our disagreements, areas banned user HeadleyDown had moved into (especially where Damian has followed), and areas I've once edited and where Damian's interest is a reflection of that. In other words "chosen in part due to our disputes".

HeadleyDown has edited (disruptively) on everything from psychology, to politicians, to sexuality.....so any area Damian follows his lead he may be accidentally inserting biased edits (HeadleyDown had a prior RFAR for political topics, edit/sock warred on speed reading, and so on, as well). If needed I will evidence this thoroughly to the Committee (to avoid WP:BEANS on this banned user I would prefer to give evidence in private).

Realistically, the areas we are likely to fall out on are any editing related to the areas I have removed HeadleyDown from -- psychology, pseudoscience, and sexuality (broadly interpreted). I would be fine with a return to full content-related editing in all areas, with a continuing restriction on those three.

Most of Damian's content work is fine. None of those 3 is his core area of editing, and his editing on these was skewed by the viewpoint of one of Wikipedia's more virulent pov warriors; having removed that user once, the prospect of having to deal with him by proxy does not appeal, and that is what Damian began doing following earlier unbans.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Uncle uncle uncle

The previous Jimbo block stated: "User says he is leaving. Good timing. Please do not unblock without approval from me and/or ArbCom"

Now Jimbi has said: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Damian_II&diff=255936935&oldid=255936051

I responded to an inquiry by Thatcher saying that I neither support nor oppose this. I should not be considered any obstacle in this situation. Apparently there is an agreement which resolves all the outstanding issues. I am hopeful for the future.

Why is the arbitration committee looking into it? Are they really parsing the original block statement "without approval from me and/or Arbcom" to mean that now that Jimbo has removed his opposition that the ArbCom approval must also come to satisfy the 'and' portion of the requirement?

Does every single issue that people have a disagreement on need to be decided by the to the Arbitration Committee?

Can't anyone blow their own nose any more? Uncle uncle uncle 00:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WJBscribe

Just a procedural note that I have, per his request, renamed User:Peter Damian II to User:Peter Damian as a partial solution to the password issue. As a more general point, one way or another this user should be able to edit articles. It seems ludicrous to me to have unblocked this person but not to allow him to get on with editing content, something clearly to the project's benefit. WJBscribe (talk) 10:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SlimVirgin

I ask the ArbCom or Thatcher to allow Peter Damian to edit in mainspace, as of now. FT2 seems to be exercising some kind of veto here, which isn't appropriate. I've several times been in a situation where users who tried to out me were unblocked without my being consulted, never mind asked, and I know how hurtful it is — e.g. Jimbo unblocked Brandt without telling me, and FloNight unblocked Poetlister — so I agree that FT2 should have input. But that shouldn't amount to a veto, which is what this currently looks like. Peter Damian's mainspace edits are good, but he's having to reply to content queries on his talk page, instead of on article talk, and another editor has had to offer to add Peter's contributions to articles for him, after Peter posts them on a subpage. It's making the project look silly. Please allow Peter to edit in the mainspace until this gets sorted out. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for FT2

FT2, in your responses, you invite people to ask about any conduct of yours that might have been less than appropriate. I'd like to take you up on that.

I was surprised to see you write on July 4, 2008, in response to a question from Alex Bakharev, that you didn't know your early edits to Zoophilia had been oversighted. You wrote that you couldn't answer Alex's question about the oversighting because you no knowledge of it — "this being the first mention of any such to me." [77]

These were the edits Peter Damian tried to draw attention to during the 2007 ArbCom elections, because he felt they showed a POV that he saw as problematic. David G oversighted them in December 2007 after Peter linked to them on his blog.

What you seem to be implying in your reply to Alex is that David took it upon himself to oversight your edits, and that he acted alone. You didn't ask him to do it, and he didn't tell you he'd done it. In fact, the first you heard of it was in July 2008.

Is that correct, or have I misunderstood the chronology? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 02:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2, you replied to this on your talk page, saying it wasn't relevant to this motion (and the reply was that you'll reply later, elsewhere, place and time unspecified). [78] I disagree that it's not relevant here. The less justified Peter's concerns are about you being on ArbCom, the more inappropriate his behavior appears, and vice versa. One of his concerns was (as I understand it; someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that you have a tendency to obfuscate when it comes to important issues.

My question is a very simple one, and you did invite us to ask questions here about your conduct, so would you mind giving a quick answer? Is it true, as you said here, that the first you heard about your early edits being oversighted in December 2007 was in July 2008?

I appreciate that you want to give a detailed answer elsewhere in the future, but for now, could you give a very quick yes-or-no answer? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 06:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patience exhausted from Bishonen

Can the committee please promptly decide whether this ban/unban is within their remit? Is it really up to FT2, a highly involved user, to speak for the committee and to rescind the unban agreement already reached, through Thatcher's efforts? [79]? It's intolerable to keep Peter Damian dangling, and unable to edit articles, while FT2 composes his statement. It's unseemly, this arrant contrast between the tender princess-and-the-pea consideration of FT2's ancient grudge shown by the committee (I assume, "the committee" in the sense of the majority of arbiters?), versus the blind eye they (again, presumably most of them?) turn to the situation of a banned, snubbed, ignored, and mobbed user—a hard-working expert contributor, yet—with a certain propensity for losing his temper—and wouldn't you have by now, dear reader? I urge the committee to approve, for the duration, the original unblocking terms, according to which PD would be able to edit freely: the terms which Thatcher was pressured to abandon at the instigation of FT2. Please apply these unblock conditions as originally planned. When FT2's statement eventually appears, the (IMO absurd, but whatever) ban from editing mainspace can always be reinstated, if FT2's statement should give a basis for it. Bishonen | talk 01:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Snowded

Peter has made outstanding contributions to content over the years and his absence from editing reflects badly on WIkipedia. The edits which got peter banned in the first place were no worse (in fact milder) than many a comment and exchange which goes unpunished on controversial pages daily (come to those on Ireland if you want examples). While Arbcom members may need some additional protection they also need a degree of robustness and should not need protecting like some tender and fragile orchid. I fully endorse the comments by Bishonen above. --Snowded TALK 09:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment II by Bishonen: Brad's motion

The central part of Newyorkbrad's motion below reads: "Peter Damian is directed not to interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly), about FT2 on any page in Wikipedia." This is an unusually one-sided remedy. Having to some extent followed the exchanges between PD and FT2 over the past year or so, I urge that the motion be made symmetrical. Something like this: "Peter Damian and FT2 are directed not to interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly), about each other on any page in Wikipedia.". I've grasped that you "do not approve of certain aspects of Peter Damian's conduct", Brad, but do you approve of all aspects of FT2's conduct? Whether or not, you are surely aware that not everybody does. It's unreasonable and unjust to leave FT2 free to "interact" with PD—say, by posting accusations and self-praise on PD's talkpage—while enjoining PD from "interacting" with FT2—say, by replying. The motion offered has the smell of compromise and exudes unease. It reads uncomfortably. Its central idea of a single individual "interacting" is incoherent, since "interact" is a word expressing reciprocity. See Oxford English Dictionary, interact: "To act reciprocally, to act on each other." Peter Damian and FT2 have been acting reciprocally, acting "on" each other. Please provide for this in the motion. Bishonen | talk 19:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Addition:Bishonen III

I'm happy to see Kirill's motion 1.1 proposing the kind of mutual ban on interaction between Peter Damian and FT2 which I proposed just above, instead of merely a ban on Peter Damian interacting with FT2. But IMO the present situation calls for a wholly mutual motion. If Peter Damian is to be blocked if he comments on FT2, then FT2 should be blocked if he comments on Peter Damian. Again, interaction is a two-way street; you can't interact all by yourself; and in this affair, there has been baiting by both users. It would be great to see the ArbCom take the moral high ground and acknowledge that, other things being equal, it is more, not less, important to restrain the more influential of the two users. As Flo points out in the "Arbitrator views and discussion" section below, FT2 and Peter Damian have been "advised" to avoid each other.[80] Please carry through this symmetrical advice in a symmetrical motion! Suggestion: Peter Damian and FT2 are directed not to comment to or on each other in any way (directly or indirectly) on any page in Wikipedia. Should either of them do so, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. Please note that this suggestion leaves out the "or make any other comment reasonably regarded as harassment or a personal attack," both because it's not appropriate to FT2, and because the ArbCom seems to be belatedly coming round to managing without "civility paroles". Bishonen | talk 19:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment II by Joopercoopers:Brad's motion

I agree with Bishonen above. What's needed here is separation as far as practicable between FT2 and PD. We are left with a little problem though in that FT2 has presented considerable evidence above which Peter Damian should, in all fairness, have a right to reply to. However, there's clearly a potential flash point in that. I suggest Peter gets a week to formulate a reply and then a line is drawn firmly under the whole affair and the motion comes into effect. If there is any follow-up to be made it must be made by others after that time. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GRBerry

I was one of the administrators trying to clean up this mess last December. I've watched it since, though largely stayed out of it since then. Having watched FT2's conduct in past periods when Damian was unblocked, I agree with the prior commentators that the two should both be restricted from commenting on one another. Indeed, FT2's conduct toward Damian and descriptions of Damian were in my eyes part of the problem even before Damian was first blocked, and they haven't really gotten any better. GRBerry 21:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I doubt the email evidence from last December is still particularly relevant, however I still have copies of all that was sent to me. GRB

Comment II by Tznkai

Since comment IIs are all the rage, here I go.

Anyway you can make a provision that everyone is asked to "drop it and move on?" The primary disruption comes from our obsession with the Peter Damian-FT2 relationship and related fora, an effective motion will probably come much faster without everyone getting their two cents in on whether Peter Damian or FT2 is more unreasonable.--Tznkai (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thatcher - I would/will, but not unless/until its clear ArbCom is taking a pass and and I've figured out if anything resembling a community voice on the matter (I don't need consensus, just to be able to sort out if there is one). That having been said - I've already modified your unblock terms, when I blocked Peter Damian for 12 hours instead of indefinitely, and WMC shored up that action as precedent by doing the same thing.--Tznkai (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-comment by Apoc2400

Could we avoid bringing in the whole wiki-drama cast? I don't think that benefits Peter Damian or anyone else.

FT2 response to comments

Damian

About 4 years, 2 arbcom cases, some 50 - 100 blocks (mostly not by myself), an Arbcom mentor ban, at least one community ban at ANI (possibly others too), a range of fabricated or wilfully mis-stated cites and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT evidenced at Arbcom and used to back up his year-long POV editing campaign and sock-warfare in 2005-06, a large amount of checkuser work (again mostly not myself), and multiple arbitrator and mentor views from 2006, all say that HeadleyDown is about as distant from the concept of "good editor" as they get.

I've offered you the evidence, you've reject it out of hand. I offered it to other seasoned admins with pov war and sneaky sock user experience, they have broadly agreed.

Thatcher -

To confirm, I'm not "aggrieved". It's irksome; it's also completely ancient history if it ends. This RFAR is to ensure it does. If no behaviors are actively being a problem, I've ignored Damian completely. If I am engaged by him, then I have mostly ignored, and sometimes provided evidence and responses to his claims, for the community. There have been enough comments by Damian that warrant responses. That said, if Damian drops his conduct damaging to the project, and his personalized campaign, then I want nothing more.
Unfortunately the risk of damage if he edits these areas needs evidencing (I've not done this in the past year mainly on the failed hope that if ignored he will cease); also the evidenced history of his involvement with the community-banned user and his own problematic editing in areas of interest and edit warring related to the banned user, need serious considering. (And sorry this case has been tough for you.)
There isn't any kind of norm or practice, that an admin who has worked on a banned user's reincarnations, should cease doing so because another hostile user disapproves. Headley's conduct as an editor, sock-puppeteer, harasser, abuser, and pov warrior is why he was banned. In his case, those edits were disruptive and damaging to content. Their proxying, or proxying of his wishes, or proxying of his suggestions, would also be very likely to be damaging. Damian has shown he is willing to do so uncritically, without heed as to WP:OR or POV arising as a result, and championed the self-same versions of text that were deemed POV by others in the past. Diffs being collated to show this concern, in preference to hearsay.

SlimVirgin

No "veto". The ban said "Arbcom or Jimbo only". Jimbo stated in email he was stepping aside. This meant the correct venue, and only venue left (as Jimbo had also told Damian in private), was Arbcom. As well, Arbcom also handles "unusually divisive matters between admins", and privacy based evidence (eg defamation/harassment cases). Both apply.

It is also unlikely that any other venue will actually resolve this (as opposed to allowing yet another chapter to play out). For example, a number of admins are unsure whether Damian is under some kind of Arbcom protection or not, and need clarity of the position, which can also only come from Arbcom.

Your follow-up question is addressed on my talk page. It's not directly salient as it doesn't touch on return or editing restrictions, so I'll answer it separately to this motion.

Bishonen, GRBerry

No "grudge". That's a Damian invention. (See "personal commitment" below.) I do have the ordinary objection of any user to defamation and smearing, but even then have avoided responding for the most part. All in all I've probably handled it rather better than most would. I've pretty much ignored it except to respond with factual points. Considering the allegations made, that's not bad at all. If you (or anyone) feels any of my conduct was in the slightest bit less than appropriate, please cite a diff or section or link for me, rather than simply asserting them.

Disclosure: In December I posted a note that the questions were presented by a user with a block for inappropriate questions; this because the questions were presumptive and contained straw men that were not obvious to a naive reader. In April I posted to Damian a confirmation I was avoiding the email thread in order to protect his (Damian's) own privacy and fair hearing. Both were checked by others for reasonableness. If any post, email or communication I made shows undue conduct, please link it. Thanks.

Comment to arbitrators on editing restrictions

Moved to main statement.

General comment

I have ignored Damian beyond the norm. I have at times responded to comments, by discussion, explanation, or evidence. If the matter is closed, I'm fine with that. That's what most here want, as well. Damian has said multiple times he wishes his concerns to be heard and for debate in public. There comes a point it's right to do so, and beneficial for the community to see the evidence to judge for themselves. A high standard of integrity is expected and has been upheld; so I'm fine evidencing this. (Again, if any user feels my standards have ever slipped in this dispute, even under provocation, then please do point me to the specific diffs or sections, where it's felt substandard conduct took place, and state what exactly is improper about them so they can be addressed.)

Personal commitment

I'm fine with a restriction on commenting on Damian, if this would help bring it to a close or anyone isn't sure if I would avoid him. I've avoided doing so wherever possible anyway (unasked) so this isn't new. I hereby undertake if any issue arises again, to avoid comment provided other admins will enforce the established norms WP:NPA, WP:HARASS and WP:AGF where these have been breached. If I am asked to explain some matter, I will do so, then drop the issue. If this is not sufficient I will seek normal dispute resolution rather than engage Damian. In all circumstances I will avoid Damian or commenting (other than in dispute resolution) on Damian, provided that it is understood I cannot prevent him involving himself with me, nor guide his words and actions if he does so. That is a commitment I give regardless of any motion in this case.

(Note that for those on WR, I will do my best there but since it's a site where gossip spreads fast, my non-response relies upon Damian's own avoidance. I will not speak to or about him there, as best I can. However this may be difficult if he were to post comments on me, or if others ask about matters where we have disagreement. I ask others to address any such, or to step in, so I don't need to. And ditto for the WR user Docknell, for reasons I don't need to go into.)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Peter Damian

FULL STATEMENT BY PETER DAMIAN IS HERE. This predates the acknowledgement that David Gerard was responsible for the oversights, otherwise it fully reflects the chronology.

Some other points

On the chronology and causation around the Dec 07 block, I strongly urge WJScribe to publish his very accurate and fair account, which includes the issue of the oversighted edits.
My campaign on Wikipedia Review revolved for the most part around the oversighted edits (an issue now resolved - I was vindicated) and on FT2's involvement in NLP. I don't recall any allegations about a cult (this was another editor) although there is certainly some evidence that NLP is a cult.
Nearly all the articles in the current NLP category were begun by him, and mostly his own work.
On Headley Down, most of the blocks before FT2 was made an admin, and therefore able to block, were instigated by FT2. All the blocks after FT2 was made admin were actually by him. (I have just found 4). The original ban of Headley Down was a case that FT2 organised. The ban was grossly unfair and should be reviewed.
I'm happy with FT2's commitment not to interact with me. Peter Damian (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noted SlimVirgin's question above, and again urge WJBScribe to make his statement in May public. Peter Damian (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Motion 1.1 by Tex

I have no dog in this fight whatsoever, but the new motion doesn't sit right. The new motion says that Peter and FT2 cannot interact with or comment on each other on any page on the wiki. It then sets forth how Peter can be blocked if he comments on FT2. What happens to FT2 if he comments on Peter? This motion cannot be enforced unless there are consequences for FT2 as well as for Peter. Are we going to be fair about this? Tex (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Recuse - party --Tznkai (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

The request for clarification is noted. This situation should be addressed, but I am not certain what is the best procedural vehicle to do so. Please note that I will have very limited online time this weekend (per comment on my talkpage the other day), so no inference should be drawn from any delay in my posting further here. All persons are requested to observe appropriate decorum in connection with this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that there is ongoing controversy and drama. All statements and relevant information should be submitted (here or via e-mail) within 24 hours so that we can decide whether the committee has a role here, and if so, what it is, as the current confusion should not be allowed to continue. We also need a complete understanding of each party's position as to what action (if any) we or the community should take, if not already provided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have completed my review of this request and offer a motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the email exchange with Jimbo, Thatcher, and myself, Peter Damian, and FT2 was that we advised that FT2 and Damian needed to avoid each other. If Damian is unblocked it makes much more sense to have him writing articles then debating a year old conflict with FT2. Damian has told us that FT2 comments push his buttons the wrong way so I think that putting them in contact with each other now will scuttle his comeback before it starts. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, there has been zero substantive discussion about Peter Damian's unblock request by arbcom during the past week. All of the discussion about the matter was between Thatcher, FT2, Damian, and Jimbo, except for a few comments that I added yesterday when I joined the discussion. So the Committee has no background information about the recent situation. FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion about this is needed before I can make up my mind as to what to support here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate, but I think we're going to have to start generally enforcing the word limit; the lengths of some of the statements above are rather excessive. Kirill ^(prof) 01:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the grounds of common sense. If we revisit this tangled mess, we need a proper case in due form of an appeal. It makes little sense for NYB to be saying "little time", since rushing at the matter is unlikely to resolve it; we should have a case, the ad hominem arguments should be replaced by evidence, and due account should be taken both of Peter Damian's apparent boundary testing and FT2's possible over-involvement in the matter. So I suggest we ask for an appeal case, and Peter Damian be allowed to edit in giving evidence for it. A case once accepted, an injunction could be voted on that would clarify what enforcement and mutual avoidance should be required pro tem. A straggling discussion here is unlikely to sort this out, in my view. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Two months of listen to Damian and FT2 debate the issues in this matter? No thank you! A simple unblock of Damian as Thatcher planned to do would have solved the situation, really. The Community is tired of high profile users engaging in soap operas instead of writing the encyclopedia. If Damian can come back an write article with out harassing FT2 off or on site, then let him do it. FloNight ♥♥♥ 08:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

There are twelve active arbitrators, so seven votes are a majority.

1) Any ban, block, or editing restriction currently in force against Peter Damian (talk · contribs) is terminated, and Peter Damian is permitted to edit Wikipedia subject to the terms of this motion. Peter Damian is directed not to interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, FT2 (talk · contribs) on any page in Wikipedia. If Peter Damian violates this restriction, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. Peter Damian is also strongly urged to refrain from inflammatory rhetoric concerning FT2 on other websites. If Peter Damian wishes to regain access to his original Wikipedia user account, a developer is requested to assist him in recovering his password.

Support:

Proposed. I do not approve of certain aspects of Peter Damian's conduct but believe that this motion may resolve the concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will review whether any modification of the motion is warranted by FT2's statement. Peter Damian is requested to comment on this issue, by e-mail if appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, except the last sentence. Thatcher explored the issue and was told by developers that it was not done now and other arrangements were made that seem satisfactory to Peter Damian, I think. FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is concern about the last sentence I will strike it; I believe there is precedent for this remedy in the Giano case, but it is not integral to the proposal and I do not want it to divert attention from the main issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember reading that, after the Giano case closed with the request to developers to help Giano recover his password, the developers said it was not possible in practice. Certainly Giano never regained access to his original account. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Prefer 1.1. Kirill ^(prof) 01:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Informal advice was ignored so need to make it formal. FloNight ♥♥♥ 07:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

There are twelve active arbitrators, so seven votes are a majority.

1.1) The editing restrictions currently in force against Peter Damian (talk · contribs) are rescinded, and he is permitted to edit Wikipedia.

Peter Damian and FT2 are directed not to interact with or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other on any page in Wikipedia. Should Peter Damian interact with or make any comment concerning FT2, or make any other comment reasonably regarded as harassment or a personal attack, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.

In addition, Peter Damian and FT2 are strongly urged not to interact with or comment about each other on any other website or public forum.

Support:

Let's leave no loose ends here. Kirill ^(prof) 01:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to FT2's request for topic limitations on Peter Damian's editing, this can be addressed should future editing indicate significant ongoing problems. I hope and expect that this should not be necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 07:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The block was fully justified and I have no confidence Peter Damian will abide by any conditions of an unblock. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Request to amend prior case: Alastair Haines

Alastair Haines arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Jayvdb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
L'Aquatique (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [81]
Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [82]
Ilkali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [83]
LisaLiel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [84]
Abtract (talk · contribs) [85]
Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [86]

Statement by John Vandenberg

L'Aquatique has recently blocked Alastair, and while the block is reasonable, it is very awkward that she blocked him, as there is a lot of history between the two.

Here is the chain of events that led to the block:

Initial changes which set off the chain of events to the block: [87][88][89][90]
Alastair Haines reverts, and posts to the talk page.
Ilkali reverts
Alastair Haines reverts
Abtract reverts
Alastair Haines then restores one chunk of the disputed diff.

While this was happening, Alastair did another unrelated revert: this was a revert of this, as demonstrated by diffing from change to revert - there are no changes in the Sikhism section.

Abtract has been reverting Alastair on articles with no other involvement or engagement on the talk page.[91][92][93] The evidence submitted by and about Abtract was disregarded in the case remedies.

Update: There was a more clearly pronounced interaction between these two users on Singular they^hist

An anon made a change, which Alastair improved; Abtract removes the entire paragraph ten days later, AH reverts two and half days later, Abtract reverts again with no discussion on the talk page; Alastair waits 7 days as he is supposed to under the editing restrictions, and reverts, Abtract reverts, and after 20 minutes without discussion on the talk AH reverts again and warns Abtract, requesting that he state his reasons for removal. Abtract takes issue with the warning and reverts once more. At this point, Abtract has reverted four times, with "remove unnecessary detail and pov on motives" as the basis, repeated in the edit summary on three of those occasions.

Finally someone else steps in, and reverts. Abtract later tags with "fact", over a period of 40 mins AH provides some good sources on the talk page and asks for other contributors to provide other examples, and two weeks later Abtract removes the uncited passages. Days later AH restored the passages, but has not provided citations yet.

There have been only a few cases of reverts occurring on this article in the ~750 edits that Alastair has been a significant contributor. In each case it looks like the matter was quickly settled.

If this was an isolated incident, it would be fair to assume that Abtract had a sudden and only brief interest in this topic on September 12, since he didnt follow up on the talk about the sources.

Sadly, here is the third article I have found where he has popped in for a visit to an article that AH has contributed to. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further update: Manliness shows a similar situation. An IP removes a section from the article, AH restores days later, and then Abtract reverts 10 hours afterwards, again with no prior history on that page.

He also appeared at Galaxy_formation_and_evolution a few days after Alastair and does a intro rewrite, and it was the intro rewrite which sparked an edit war on Gender of God.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong has extended the block due to the way that Alastair was managing his user talk page. Again this is justifiable, as the talk page management was not good. A big edit war there.

I think there are three amendments that would help this case work better:

Blocks should be from uninvolved admins
Ilkali, LisaLiel, Alastair Haines and Abtract should not permitted to revert each others edits, or if that is too strong, they must accompany any revert with justification on the talk page.
Alastair Haines should be given no room to move in the management of talk discussions, as he is his own worst enemy in that regard. This is primarily in regard to his own user talk, but a broader restriction would be preventative of similar problems occurring in other namespaces. He must not remove or later comments left by others, except by way of removing an entire thread after a reasonable period. (i.e. archiving)

@L'Aquatique, the mediation last time did not end well. Those scabs were healing, but now there is blood everywhere again. It is suffice to say that any warning or block by you will not be headed; I wish it was not so, but that is life. You may be right that another admin would have been rejected in the same way; it depends on whether they were guided by the fact that Alastair is a massive content creator, and should be treated respectfully even when he has broken the rules. I am not suggesting that you dont treat him well, but you are not uninvolved, at least from his perspective. I hope people can see past the arbcom situation, and see that his heart is 100% in the right spot.
I'm not disputing that the block was fine, I very quickly saw that, and because Alastair had said on his talk page that he wanted to be left alone, I emailed him privately and told him the block was fine and started brainstorming on how to resolve this. FWIW, he is in full agreement on the first two of my suggestions being helpful - the third will come as a surprise to him, but I hope he sees the intent behind the third is not malicious. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Miguel.mateo, please review the diffs I provided above. Alastair is under editing restrictions that prohibit him from making two reverts on the same page for a week. Take note of the unrelated revert I mention under the bullet points. There can be no doubt that he broke the technicalities of the editing restriction, but the circumstances of the reverts placed Alastair in another situation where he was being overruled by the number of opponents. He needs to learn that he can not go it alone, and that he must take these problems to a noticeboard for admin consideration/intervention. The first block was fine, and escalating blocks will hopefully address this problem. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncmvocalist, L'Aquatique is involved due to an attempt to mediate on Gender of God, when it quickly escalated from there to L'Aquatique taking Alastair to arbcom, due to the mediation going wrong in lots of ways, and much of that was beyond the control of the mediation. It was probably heading to arbcom anyway. We can predict that unnecessary drama happens when involved admins continually address the problems arising with a valued user. It looks like a vendetta even when it isnt. It should not be too much to ask that involved admins to take a matter to Arbitration enforcement rather than tackle it themselves. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@L'Aquatique, I didnt mean "tackling" in a bad sense ("addressing" would have been a better choice of words), and I think it is fair to call him a good faith contributor. I've revised the sentence; sorry that it came across wrong. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirill, Alastair has survived two months since the case closed without a block, and the original problem this time was a few reverts, and it was accompanied with discussion on the talk page. And now you see no alternative but to ban him for a statement he made two months ago, two days after the arbitration case closed? Even if he still holds that opinion, and he holds that position beyond the context of the discussion it was framed by, surely you can see room in his comment for a better outcome? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncmvocalist irt Abtract: My point is not that Alastair is a saint, nor was I concerned about Abtract as I wasnt aware of the outcomes of the recent case. Wikis are not perfect, and passionate editors often end up in scuffles - Religious topics are a hotbed. I am trying to establish that Abtract was very involved and it was an oversight to exclude him from the remedies of the last case, and it is one that Abtract appears to have taken advantage of.

The interaction after the last case is Singular they, Manliness, Galaxy formation and evolution, Gender of God and Virginity. In all cases Abtract appears after Alastair and without any prior involvement or discussion, except in the case of Gender of God, where the has been no involvement since the RFAR closed.

Based on my analysis, there are not enough pages with interaction to establish that Abtract is wikistalking, and the intro rewrites have been good, however the number of similar pages suggests he is occasionally dipping into AH's contrib list, and removing an entire paragraph without discussion or explanation, as happened on Manliness and Virginity, is a concern.

I would like to see more effective remedies looking forward: a level playing field and an uninvolved referee. I think the amendments I am seeking should help, but would welcome other ones. As the Gender of God page has caused this to flare up two times, it would be reasonable to page ban them all from it, however Alastair has indicated to me that he is happy to move away from that page voluntarily if I jump in and keep an eye on it, so maybe that will be suffice to prevent major drama again on that page.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncmvocalist irt suggested Abtract remedies: I agree with "must not revert AH"; that will help, but to be effective, they all must not revert each other. They are all good faith editors with various issues when working together - there should be no reason that they need to revert each other, as it will always end badly.

However limiting the Abtract 1RR to only "religion" articles misses the point. Alastair is a scholar, and often comes in and helps on a really wide array of articles, especially where linguistics and languages play a part (which is everything except Pokemon?), and Abtract has followed him to pages which are not religious in nature. Abtract's stated opinion of AH during the last case, and even here again, is that he feels that this constant monitoring of AH is his duty, from which we can deduce he will continue to follow AH to the ends of the wiki. As this is the second instance that he has pushed buttons of another editor, 1RR should be enforced across the wiki to limit the opportunity of this happening to a third editor. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Abtract: you added "[citation needed]" at the top of a section, which is not what that the {{fact}} template is for. Richard Arthur Norton restored your misuse of the template when he reverted me, and now AH removed only your erroneous use of the template. You have now removed four paragraphs from this article that were missing inline citations, which of course has spurred us into action to find appropriate sources, etc. This poking is annoying, especially considering you are doing the removals without disputing the accuracy of the text in question. We are very willing to discuss and critise these paragraphs; AH has already critically assessed parts of the text that you removed, as have I, and sources are appearing on the talk. You could have obtained the same result by asking nicely. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another update, Abtract has now removed an interesting and sourced paragraph that was added to Virginity a few hours ago by a user with four contribs since April 2007: T dawwg (talk · contribs). Alastair and I welcomed the user, and then Abtract reverts their addition with an edit summary of "rv v". Please do something about the motions that were proposed or I will need to ask administrators to start helping instead. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet one more update, Abtract has now started snipping at me unprovoked, and also not factually as my reply indicates. After my reply, he starting to take an undesirable interest in my User:Jayvdb/New pages list that I linked to in my reply, promptly breaking the syntax in one of my most recent new articles[94]. Talk:Gender_of_God#Confused_of_wikipedia was not helpful on an article that needs delicate handling. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by L'Aquatique

I agree with many of John's points- I particularly like the idea of not allowing the major parties to revert each other although in practice that may be difficult to regulate. In addition, although it is somewhat unorthodox, we must put some method in place to prevent Alastair from entirely having his way with his userpage: during this dispute he erased many of my statements and then selectively quoted sections out of context in a method that, frankly, stretched my AGFifier. If for no reason other than transparency's sake, he should not be allowed to do that. Removing comments is one thing, removing them but replying to them makes it incredibly difficult for someone uninvolved to understand what is happening in a neutral way.
I do not agree with the statement that "uninvolved admins" should not be allowed to place blocks. For one thing, who decides who is involved or not? I've had no contact with Alastair since the end of the arbcom case, I forgot to remove Gender of God from my watchlist and I happen to notice a revert on it- not by Alastair but by Ilkali. I looked into it, noticed that there was an edit war, gave both parties the same warning. Ilkali apparently listened to me, Alastair did not. His claim that I have it out for him is patently, and obviously false and I expect anyone looking at this situation to realize that I'm being honest here: I don't give a damn what he does, as long as it's within policy. Thems the rules of the game.
It's easy to say that an "involved admin" shouldn't have made the call, but is anyone here actually disputing that it was the right call to make? From his comments and reactions to other admins that have dropped by it's clear he would have reacted this way to any admin who blocked him. Since it was the right call, it doesn't feel relevant to me who made it. L'Aquatique[talk] 04:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to NewYorkBrad: I do believe it was done in a way intended to mislead. If you get a chance, you should take a look at the history of his talk page, it's pretty much spelled out there. L'Aquatique[talk] 05:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to John Vandenberg: obviously, I disagree. This user may contribute a lot of content but that does not, as he seems to think- put him above the rules. This is not a newbie who does understand our social mores, this is an experienced editor who has been here long enough to know better- he's been the subject of an arbcom case and is on civility parole, for goodness sakes! There is no reason why we should be accomodating him. L'Aquatique[talk] 07:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to JV's response to Ncmvocalist: I'm tackling a good faith user? Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch...? L'Aquatique[talk] 10:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent]Response to Kirill: while I do believe that his behavior has been inappropriate and his conduct towards me obnoxious- I don't know that we're to the point of a yearlong ban yet. If we had newer evidence of his intention to wholly disregard his arbcom sanctions, I would feel more comfortable about it. Just as we don't block vandals at AIV who haven't edited recently, we shouldn't ban someone based on three month old diffs. He should be coming back from his block what, tomorrow? Let's see what his response to all this madness is. L'Aquatique[talk] 05:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also just want to point out the thread on this page's talk. It's really quite telling. Ryūlóng and Haines. L'Aquatique[talk] 00:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Abtract's most recent post: that's not the same edit- the material is completely different. I don't think that qualifies as violating his arbcom restrictions- clarification from an arb might be helpful here. L'Aquatique[talk] 12:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I made a note re: the inappropriate removal of L'Aquatique's comments at Alastair Haines talk page prior to the block extension.
I'm not too fond of the idea of changing the existing restrictions to reduce the number of administrators who may enforce them in this particular case.
Will look into Abtract's conduct with one of the involved admins - I don't think the majority are aware of this so will notify them too.

Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Newyorkbrad

Both myself and LessHeard vanU looked through this and per User_talk:LessHeard_vanU#Abtract, we couldn't find similar issues between Abtract's conduct here and that found in the Abtract-Collectonian case. Rather, it seems a case of reverting with minimal communication. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After further review and discussion with a couple of others, I've struck my above post (and apologies for the delay). This has taken a lot of time already, and I note the further edits that were made since my last comment below - John Vandenberg has presented enough to demonstrate cause for concern. I also support the second proposal, and prefer it being enacted by ArbCom rather than by the community. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further restrictive remedies may also be necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to John Vandenberg on Abtract-Alastair Haines evidence

This is indeed concerning - but it does not help Alastair Haines case in a great way either. A bold edit was made by an anon and improved by AH, and Ab reverted. The next course should've been discuss this edit rather than reverting over the bold edit. The fact that instead of discussing this, AH chose to see his restriction as an inalienable right to revert, is problematic. This is especially given the principle on editorial process, and the finding of him edit-warring, and what the remedy was intended to target. This seems to have occurred before Ab popped up in the third article (which although was later, isn't looking good either). Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My view: Wikihounding can have a detrimental effect on valued contributors, and I don't think it's wise to set a limit or quantity of pages before contributors are protected from it. This is especially so for editors who've recently had restrictions imposed upon them to prevent wikihounding. That said, I think a similar expectation needs to be imposed on editors who were restricted on reverts.

AH's first editing restriction (that is specified in his remedy) has two requirements - 1/ limit of one revert per page per week, and 2/ discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. AH on more than one occasion has failed to discuss content reversions on the talk page and he needs to ensure he complies with the restriction to the letter. I disagree with Newyorkbbrad's comment below that suggests that there has only been one violation; merely asking another user to open a discussion isn't helpful [95], nor were the reverts on Gender of God as I noted above, nor was this. The fact that there was a lack of enforcement does not mean that there has been compliance with the restriction and what it was intended to remedy. The lack of enforcement is a problem, which is why I still do not feel comfortable supporting a change to the enforcement of the remedy. There are certainly times where there will be an appearance of a vendetta, but this wasn't a borderline call or a one-off violation.

Therefore, I see a few things that can happen here:

Alastair Haines
1. is banned per Kirill's motion below. If that fails, then the following:
2. is indefinitely topic-banned from editing Gender of God;
3. is topic banned from religion articles for a period of time that is definitely greater than one month;
4. is banned from removing or refactoring other people's commentary on any page. The only times Alastair Haines may move commentary is when he is archiving his talk page, per Jayvdb above;
5. is banned from reverting edits made by Abtract. Should he violate any of these bans, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling
Abtract
1. is banned from reverting edits made by Alastair Haines;
2. is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism) ~~on religion articles~~, and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should he exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, or violate the ban, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling.

My view so far. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment to John Vandenberg

I can appreciate the point raised and agree; I've therefore struck the on religious articles bit from the remedies I suggest that are imposed on Abtract.

On another note, both yourself and Casliber have requested for some consideration, but before that, both of you may need to assist him so that these concerns are resolved. This is the second time there are a problems, but more troubling than that (which is perhaps the cause of my reluctance), Alastair's statement(s), particularly the one below, seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding or even appreciation of the fact that many users have found problems with his conduct. There's a much greater need to make him understand that he has an obligation to make time: he needs to ensure that any edit he makes are in full compliance with his restrictions. Of course, I expect that he may find it inconvenient to spend time to ensure complicance, but his current editing style is a problem - what is needed is a substantial change so that this will not be a problem in the long-term. Absent of (1) an understanding of what those problems are, and (2) a willingness and ability to deal with them, the change will not happen and this situation is likely to deteriorate; he may find himself preveted from editing, whether voluntarily or non-voluntarily. He'll probably be given rope this time, but it's all in his hands as to how he will use it to his benefit or detriment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Abtract

The statements by Anish and Redtigerxyz have not been helpful due to a failure to look into these incidents carefully enough (or for failing to understand the wider conduct concerns here). Personally, I'm under the impression that this would be resolved if Kirill's motion was enacted (but I'm waiting to see if Jayvdb/Casliber/someone can get through to him).

But that aside, I wasn't impressed by your own revert behaviour (and lack of accompanying discussion) either: [96] [97] [98] [99] - this was despite the revert being disputed for the third time (regardless of how many days apart) [100]. If you made an undertaking to discuss your content reversions more appropriately (in fact, discuss as opposed to revert repeatedly), and confirm that you will strictly stick to it, then the sanction suggestion may be unnecessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Anish

I've been discussing this with the person who initiated this request, and I don't think we'd have gotten beyond a greeting if either of us predecided any relevant issue. I hold a wider view; my above comment notes under what circumstances a ban may not be necessary. However, to call a ban unjustified in this case is at a stretch and confirms my doubts regarding your understanding of the issues and concerns here. Rather, what's being considered (or should be the only things left to consider) is the the requests for clemency (which is reasonable), and any relevant factors/evidence. I am aware of the large amount of time and effort others are putting into this to try to get those factors, but it's all in AH's hands now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Miguel.mateo

I do question the first block given to Alistair. Not only the admin who did the block is inappropriate, the block itself is not justified. Please check the evidence given in User_talk:Alastair_Haines#Me_too. Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)　[reply]

@John: I am not disagreeing with you, but the evidence provided by the admin who blocked Alastair is here: User_talk:Alastair_Haines#Gender_of_God, the second evidence is a revert Alastair did on his own edit. I think the admin in question had definitely quick fingers to act. Then check again to her answers in User_talk:Alastair_Haines#Me_too, she still believes that the second evidence provided is "within policy". Anyway, you have shown extreme professionalism so far in this case, I know it is in good hands. I will leave you guys alone now, I am sure you all need time to analyze. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admins, apologies for interrupting once more, but you can see some evidence of Alastair being attacked blindly (even when he can not defend himself) by one of those people that want nothing but to get him off Wikipedia, here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Ry.C5.ABl.C3.B3ng_and_Haines. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilkali: unfortunaly, we are all entitled to give our opinion, and in this case we, "the cheerleaders", are not the only one that felt that it was not handled properly. The fact that you and your buddies are constantly assuming bad faith against Alastair will never fix the issue. Why do you have to think that a random comment from an IP, in this talk page, has to come from Alastair? BTW, I suggest you to read sarcasm. Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Please do me a favour and review again, L'Aquatique blocked Alastair and later she asked another admin to review that block. Look at the evidence she placed in Alastair's talk page: the second Alastair's revert is a revert he did to himself. When I asked why she counted that as a revert, her answer was "that is the policy". I honestly believe that she acted too quickly against Alastair, but that is for you guys to judge. Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Abtract

Just to clarify my position. I have edited Gender of God many times over the last year or so - indeed it is there that I had the misfortune to meet Haines for the first time. Naturally, the article is on my watch list; when Haines (or anyone else) makes unhelpful edits, I revert them. I would not support any relaxation of the restrictions on Haines who likes to use his undoubted intellect and knowledge to control the content of article he feels he owns. Nor would I support any restrictions on other editors to allow Haines more freedom to act - he is a bully who needs less, not more, freedom imho. Abtract (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Newyorkbrad

My views on Haines are, I hope, well known and well documented: he is a bully of the worst kind - he uses his superior intellect, knowledge and charisma to overwhelm lesser mortals. I first had the misfortune to meet him on Gender of God and then again on Singular they, both articles have been on my watch list for some time. I was highly relieved when he was restricted but frankly not too surprised when he completely rejected the restrictions as being beneath him and certainly not to be considered when he edits. His aggressive stance towards any admin who crosses him is all part of his arogant I-walk-on-water style; be warned this guy will not change his spots unless forced so to do, or you banish him. So far as my actions are concerned I want to be entirely open here: in an unrelated case (with C........n) I was guilty of some petty revenge-seeking minor edits mainly designed to annoy Cn. I admit it, I am human - I felt wronged, I was hurt, I hit back. I have learned my lesson and would draw your attention to this edit (and the two by Cn that preceded it) to demonstrate that I did not take a golden opportunity (handed to me on a plate) to pursue the vendetta any further. My interactions with Haines have been quite different: mainly they have been on articles where we share an interest (I don't edit much nowadays because I have other fish to fry which explains my infrequent visits to certain articles), I may well have edited on a pop-in basis on new article because I do watch Haines' edits occasionally (I stress occasionally), but I only edit, or revert, if I think the edit or rv is fully justified (someone above said my changes to intros were "good", I think I quote correctly). I watch his edits because he is a convicted bully and it is all our duty to stand up to bullies - if I had time I would watch more of his edits. I am guessing that quite a number of the editors, admins on this page also watch his edits (indeed one or two may well watch mine), so be it. I have been at the brunt end of his bullyboy tactics and I know what it is like; protecting others where I can occasionally (but only if I disagree with his edits, be clear) is a worthwhile cause - much better than being bitchy with Cn. My attitude to Haines is what any decent editor would support if they knew all the facts - as you guys surely must. Abtract (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respose to Ncmvocalist

I am disappointed that you consider it necessary to restrict me (and others) for standing up to a convicted bully. If, each time someone stands up to Haines they are restricted, this simply gives him more freedom when surely he should have less, for the good of wp. If no-one stands up to him, he will just continue on his merry way - is there no system for checking what he is doing? The last thing I want is to be bothered policing Haines but no one else seems to be doing so.

I am also keen to know on what grounds restrictions might be placed on me - I can find nowhere that says that watching edits is wrong, indeed:

Many users track other users edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases. The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

That seems to support my, meticulously polite, actions in checking that Haines is not continuing his bullyboy ways (a violation of policy if ever I saw one).

Do what you will but I urge you to think very carefully about the message you give to him and other bullies "It's OK, we will protect you by restricting how ordinary editors interact with you so that you can act pretty much as you want". Abtract (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone who thinks Haines may be reconciled to acting within the restrictions

Please read this diatribe. Abtract (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as though to prove the point

this revert of a tag just replaced by Richard Arthur Norton followed less than two days after this one on the same article. He is currently limited to one revert per week per article but, as he keeps on telling us, he has no intention of depriving wp in that way. Abtract (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts about resticting me

I see that a rather draconian restriction on me has been proposed. Even the proposal must give considerable heart to Haines ... were it to be enacted, you will never be able to control him or his cheer-leaders again. Please think carefully about the message this would send him and the freedom it would grant him. I have no particular desire to keep an eye on Haines but, unless someone does, he will continue his bullying rampage and get his way on all articles he chooses to own. Abtract (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am so saddend by the likelihood that this restriction will be enacted. Do you guys actually read the diffs? On what basis am I "wikihounding" Haines? This simpy beggars belief. I watch his edits, I make changes to articles, if I find them interesting, if I feel they need it and I certainly stand up to his bullying ... where is the harm in that? Where does it say I must not do that? Can anyone point to an edit I have made on a Haines related article that was not a good faith edit? I think not. Think about this very carefully; Haines must be laughing all the way to his "get out of jail" card. Abtract (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Ryulong

I don't know if I'm actually an involved "party" in this. I reviewed the reverts Alastair Haines made after L'Aquatique requested someone to review her block of Haines. I looked into the block and made my comment on his talk page, and warned that if he continued to purposefully remove the comments left by L'Aquatique to skew the view of the discussion in his favor, I would prevent him from editing his user talk page. When I returned to Wikipedia yesterday, I found that he persisted in his activities and did the same to my message, I decided that the course of action was to (instead of protecting the page) block his account for 48 hours from that point such that the editing of the talk page was disabled. This added 12 hours to his block in total. If others feel it is necessary, I can restore the original block length and keep the user talk page editing disabled.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Ilkali

Problems like this will continue as long as Alastair wilfully and explicitly disregards the sanctions placed on him ("I do not feel in any way party to whatever conclusions [Arbcom] may have come to"). L'Aquatique's actions in this case were fair and generous. Alastair's violation of his 1RR was objectively verifiable, leaving no room for bias, and she did not even block him at his first offense; he was given a warning and contemptuously rejected it. The only reason we would restrict L'Aquatique from enforcing Arbcom's rulings is to protect Alastair's pride, which is at best unnecessary pandering and at worst encourages an attitude that has already proven itself disruptive. Ilkali (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re L'Aquatique's comment: At the point where you issued warnings, Alastair's edit (which pushed him over 1RR) had been the most recent for over two hours. I object, as I did on my talk page, to the insinuation that I did or would have violated my 1RR sanction. There is no evidence of such. Ilkali (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re John Vandenberg's comment: Would you endorse a requirement that Alastair both: 1) accept that he violated his sanctions (thereby warranting a block), and 2) agree not to do so in future? If an editor is allowed to openly ignore the sanctions placed on him with no greater result than an occasional short-term block, then what was the point of those sanctions? Ilkali (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Newyorkbrad's comment: Alastair has actually violated the restriction twice; once at Singular they [101] and once at Gender of God [102]. The fact that he accused the blocking admin of corruption in the latter instance clearly indicates that he still does not consider himself subject to the 1RR restriction. Ilkali (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Miguel.mateo's comment: I have never called for Alastair to be banned, and on multiple occasions have even argued against it. You, like Buster7, have come into this matter knowing nothing about the circumstances and with the sole interest of defending your friend by demonising everyone you perceive as his enemy. Ilkali (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to insist that the best first step is to talk to Alastair. It is far too early to consider a ban. In my opinion, all of the problems with this editor stem from his pride and inability to view his own actions critically (this is not helped by the presence of cheerleaders like SkyWriter/Teclontz, Buster7 and Miguel.mateo). By far the best approach is to either shake this attitude or persuade him to change his editing pattern so it cannot cause conflicts. Ilkali (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following was recently added on Alastair's talk page:

"The heat is off ArbCom in my opinion, but that means it comes back on us to be bold in assisting one another in conflicts", "I hate to ask people to waste their time on conflict to help me, but I need friends to do this for me and they are willing. I will aim to assist others in their conflicts, but my own are going to be fought by my friends"

What exactly are you enlisting these people to do, Alastair? Ilkali (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved User:Buster7

The fact that Administrator L'Aquatique is blind to the negative personal involvement and the animosity that she has toward Alastair is most upsetting. She went after him as her very first act as an Administrator. It was almost as tho she had him in her sights from the very beginning. She ~~should be banned~~ should recuse herself from any contact whatsoever having to do with Editor Alastair Haines. Her animus toward him certainly seems irreconcilable. --Buster7 (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LisaLiel

Everything I had to say about this case was said in the original case. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by not-impartial Casliber

I have been too busy to examine the article material in depth, and I am nonpartial as I am a friend of Alastair (so if anyone feels this means this should be disregarded so be it). I note that (a) if I were blocked by an editor I had previously had a confrontation with after (b) two editors I had previously had run ins with turned up to revert changes of mine in a tense situation, I would be pretty enraged. Now whether this is justified or not is another matter, but what I do see here is a heated situation. Many actions are done and later regretted in the heat of the moment, so I would take this into account with respect to events and statements after this point. I appreciate L'Aquatique did ask another admin's view before blocking, which was a wise move and I respect that, but I do think in these cases that even the semblance of a COI can be bad - i.e. another admin should have done the blocking. End result, what am I asking for? A plea for clemency for Alastair, who is a valued contributor and has much to give. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alastair Haines

So long as ArbCom members appear to endorse unsustainable criticisms of my editing, that amount to personal attacks, there will be problems.

Since my editing is, and always has been impeccable, it is easy for me to overlook any restrictions placed on me. They only ask me to do what I've always done anyway. There is no evidence, anywhere, that suggests I have done otherwise than act in a way that any reasonable member of the community can find consistent with improving and maintaining Wikipedia, either in incidents refered to above, associated with the original ArbCom case, or in any other editing at Wiki.

I have absolutely no problem with the restrictions ArbCom proposed, except two—one practical, the other more abstract. Regarding practicality, it is simply unreasonable to keep a diary of all reverts I make, and consult it. I simply work too quickly for that. I revert multiple times and quickly while copy-editing and receive no complaints. Additionally, when people repeatedly vandalise a page, it is impractical to keep a diary of what they did and when. Again, I never receive complaints about this.

That brings us to the abstract issue. L'Aquatique, Ilkali and Abtract are not credible witnesses, all have demonstrated personal animosity and gaming the system. These things are obvious even to casual observers. All make a point of seeking to paint a picture of my editing as though it had been broadly agreed to contain questionable elements. This is simply not the case. No credible witness against my editing has ever been brought forward.

I will not deal with it here, but the ArbCom case bearing my name, and its conclusions, are not credible evidence of anything much, for a range of reasons. This is a serious problem, that I would like to help ArbCom members resolve in another forum. Current handling of the case is creating embarassment for people (namely the arbitrators) that I would like to spare from that. I love volunteer workers, and can imagine few jobs more challenging and uncomfortable than addressing the sorts of disputes that are accepted as ArbCom cases.

However, while a handful of people's untennable misrepresentation of my editing (which are simply personal attacks) remains uncorrected, a fundamental principle of Wiki editorial cameraderie is being blatantly "bucked" in front of the noses of responsible parties. Unsurprisingly, the ir-responsible parties are making, and will continue to make, sport of this oversight. It's only my problem in the sense that I have to experience it, in reality it is the problem of my fellow Wikipedians to protect me from it. Is it easier for it to be endured, or for it to be corrected? I've been enduring, please correct it. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS I just remembered, I did make one edit that was not aimed at improving or maintaining Wikipedia.[103] My apologies to everyone for my playfulness on that occasion. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PPS I've just been glancing over this page. ArbCom members have way too much work. I am embarassed that I only notice this now. I think the decision in my case was unhelpful, but with the deepest sincerity, now I don't care. ArbCom members have volunteered to do a task that is almost impossible, as far as I can see. Make whatever decisions seem best to you in the limited time available to you. I am not going to hold you accountable to live up to what are, in my revised opinion, unreasonable expectations in the circumstances. You have made it difficult to support you, but support you I will. I have plenty of resources of wise and good friends at Wiki who can ensure peace and that you are not troubled again. My apologies that you have once more been troubled by this case. Very inconsiderate. Make sure you get enough sleep, stay faithful to real life friends and take breaks when you need them. I doubt you'll be hearing from me again, but I'll be thinking of you. Cheerio. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sam has lead the way for me to say something more helpful. Please feel free to change your vote and ban me instead. Your comment that my opinion regarding the ArbCom case is not a matter of enforcement, strikes me as profoundly Wikipedian. It is extremely easy to respect and strive to co-operate with that kind of thinking. "I am willing to endure your criticism if you are willing to endure mine." That's a realistic, mature and egalitarian view of life isn't it? How it bears on details of the case itself is interesting food for thought. Best regards to all in your deliberations. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I think it is important that I acknowledge that I've heard Florence' comment. I may well have misread it, but if I've heard correctly, it extends a great generosity—a legitimate opportunity to influence a vote. I may be in error to do so, but in the nicest possible way, I take it personally—as a gift. There are many ways to honour that, and I will pursue as many as I can. Perhaps being more open to influencing votes is something I should think of incorporating into my "style". Everyone else does it! ;) There are complexities, but I think that's all I should say, right here, right now. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accept: I accept the proposed urging of ArbCom to not interact with Abtract, and will cease as of this post. I am heartened that there are no restrictions proposed for him, save in reference to myself. I would protest on his behalf if there were. He has a keen mind and clear expression, I wish him well in his studies ... and at Wiki. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anish Shah

Although, I have never been involved in this dispute nor with the other editors, I have been involved with Alastair many times and hence in the interest of wikipedia, I feel compelled to make a statement. Any proposal to ban Alastair or put any restrictions on his edits, spell a big disaster for Wikipedia. Most editors on wikipedia are either mass editors or intellectuals, Alastair is those from a rare breed who is both. His edits have a compelling effect on those editing with him. It raises the quality of edits and discussions on the pages edited by him. I have found him a team player and hence fail to understand why certain editors are after him. I am sure that L'Aquatique is a good wikipedian and a good person to work with, but as stated by John Vandenberg there is no denying the fact that she has a history with Alastair. In such cases even good admins tend to lose objectivity and do get trigger-happy. In real life we do have cases like – Judges recuseing themselves in interested cases or interested directors not voting in board resolutions. So I do support Vandenberg’s view that block should be from uninvolved admins. Secondly, the case of Alastair editing his own talk page is so trivial that I am surprised that it is even discussed. We should not be worried as how a discussion thread is going on a talk page. In most cases I see persons replying to the other talk page rather than in his own page under the question. In such cases no one worries about the “transparency” on the talk pages. Everyone should have the authority to manage his own talk page and remove any edits or warnings that he deems to be defamatory or bogus. --Anish (talk) 06:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed with User Kirill and FloNights decision to support the motion to ban Alastair. While they may have some valid reasons, I feel following things need to be considered:

Alastairs contributions here [104]. With more than 20,000 edits, they are a veteran’s contribution befitting an administrator. As can be seen he has raised the standard of the articles that he has edited.
Is a ban on Alastair justified? Is he a vandal, or incivil, or a spammer or indulging in harassment to anyone? Or a sock puppet? Of course not.
The only issue it seems some people are targeting him because he is not confirming to their idea of some behavior. And these are the people with whom he had some history and hence have totally lost objectivity of the issue. These are the only people who are opposing him. As for the revert war or edit war it takes two parties to indulge in it. So Alastair cannot carry the blame single handedly.
There is nothing wrong in saying with conviction that ones edits are impeccable. If he were arrogant, Alastair would not have apologized in one case where he playfully made some non-serious edits.
Skywriter/Teclontz, Buster7 and Miguel.mateo are not the only so called “cheer leaders” A lot of people have shown support and appreciation for Alastair. If these can be called “Cheer leaders” then his victimization can be called “Witch-hunt”
A one year ban is like a life-time ban……I have seen good people leaving wikipedia in such cases. Mostly vandals come back after one year bans.
Alastair has not done something wrong…..kirill only worries that he will do something wrong in future..and hence the ban. This is like unjustified pre-emptive strike.

--Anish (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Ncmvocalist Its not that I have not understood the issue being discussed here. I am looking at much much wider issue here that is likely to result on account of unjustified ban on Alastair. The question is, are you willing to take a wider view of the issue or have already pre-decided on this issue?--Anish (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Redtigerxyz

I am not directly associated with the case, however I have been involved with Alastair as he is currently copy-editing Vithoba. I am a major contributor to the article and "maintain" it. Alastair has considerable contributions to religion-based articles like FA Anekantavada (Alastair was the FAC nominator) and Vithoba. So i am against the idea of Alastair being "topic banned from (all) religion articles for a period of time that is definitely greater than one month" and "banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year". I also support the view that only uninvolved admins should enforce a block. Also, about the removal on his own talk, wiki-policy allows it - Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#User_talk_pages. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Leszek Jańczuk

I am not directly associated with the case, but Alastair copy-edited some of my articles (f.e. Codex Coislinianus, Papyrus 110, Uncial 0212), and I can say one: He is very good wiki-editor. Every article copy-edited by Alastair became better. He also created a lot of important articles. He is one of the best editors, we know, and this discussion is not a good idea. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Awaiting statements. Note that a user's "removing warnings" from a his or her own userpage is generally not blockable (or "block-extendible"), although I can imagine some situations (was this one?) where it would be inappropriate to allow removal of comments in the middle of a thread so as to deliberately make the remainder of the thread grossly misleading. On a different issue, I'd appreciate someone's making sure there are no parallels between Abtract's behavior here and his conduct discussed in the Abtract-Collectonian case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The information added by John Vandenberg adds to my worry that this may be another "wikihounding" situation involving Abtract. I have not reviewed the evidence on this myself as yet. Abtract's comments on this issue would be welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Motion proposed concerning Abtract, below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm still reviewing the comments and will vote when I'm done. Hopefully today or tomorrow. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to change my vote now, but I'll continue to review the comments and evidence presented, and if I see something that gives me confidence that problems will not continue then I'll change my vote. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion re Alastair Haines

There are twelve active arbitrators, so seven votes are a majority.

1) Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support:

Since he rejects the restriction placed on him, and state that he has no intention of abiding by it, I see no alternative here. Kirill ^(prof) 21:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)~~ Strike vote for ban after reviewing the recent comments by Alastair Haines. Fuller comment about this situation, later. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The cited statement of defiance is obviously unhelpful, but it is two months old and I do not see evidence that Alastair Haines has actually violated the restriction except once, so I don't think this is necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he's repeated it just above: "... my editing is, and always has been impeccable... the ArbCom case bearing my name, and its conclusions, are not credible evidence of anything much...". A limited restriction is hardly of use if it's both going to be ignored in practice (the lack of previous violations being an accident, in my view, rather than evidence of Alastair actually keeping the restriction in mind) and rejected in principle as an indication of an area which needs improvement. Kirill ^(prof) 13:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Alastair Haines has declared his rejection of the restriction is neither here nor there; he is not compelled to like it. What we saw on 22 November was simply a breach of the existing restriction, and I do not think a routine and singular breach of an arbitration remedy is grounds for escalating to a one year ban. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Motion re Abtract

There are twelve active arbitrators, so seven votes are a majority.

Abtract (talk · contribs) is directed not to interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Alastair Haines (talk · contribs), on any page in Wikipedia, or to harass Alastair Haines such as by editing (including but not limited to reverting on) pages that Alastair Haines has recently edited but Abtract has not previously edited. Should Abtract violate this restriction, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time, up to one month, by any uninvolved administrator. Alastair Haines is urged to avoid any unnecessary interaction with Abtract.

Support:

Proposed. I am concerned about the interactions described above by John Vandenberg, in light of the prior history of Abtract's harassment of another user as documented in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian. I will add that Abtract's belated admission that he deliberately sought set out to harass and annoy Collectonian and his promise to stop doing that would have been better received if they had been made before this arbitrator had to spend several hours analyzing the evidence and drafting the proposed decision in that case. Despite Alastair Haines' own issues, there is no reason to allow him to be subjected to similar misconduct. Abtract had better drop his pursuit of vendettas against other editors, whatever he thinks of them, right now if he wants to retain his editing privileges. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The diffs collected by John Vandenberg are compelling. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Will leave Alastair Haines fate as an editor in his own hands instead of having it unduly influenced by Abtract. This is only a stopgap measure to deal with the immediate issue. Additional wikihounding from Abtract will bring more editing restrictions or a ban. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Request to vacate Matthew Hoffman case

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

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Arbcom

I've also notified a couple people who were tangentally involved, they can decide if they wish to add their names. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

A few months ago, Newyorkbrad encouraged me to open a new request related to the core of this case, but the wounds were too raw, and I was unable to set out my evidence calmly at that time, so delayed.

I ask that we reopen the matter now.

In this case, the arbcom, while I was suffering from severe depression, illness, and on the verge of nervous breakdown from the monetary situation at the time - I was literally faced with being homeless - opened a case with no prior dispute resolution - I had never had so much as an RfC on me - and chose me to be a test case. In the end, combined with the other events, this forced me to drop out of university. I left Wikipedia over it, and it was only the active, constant encouragement of User:Newyorkbrad, User:Durova and a few others that brought me back after several months.

A sitting arbitrator launched a campaign of harrassment throughout the case pages, unchecked by the other arbitrators. Here are some samples. This all took place over a single bad block, made two months before the Arbcom case was opened.

In the initial lead in to the case, I had offered to let Charles Matthews take over the block, in e-mail, because there was no way that I could review it competently at that point in time. He said that was "not good enough", so I put it up on ANI.

Charles Matthews specifically says at one point that my refusal to simply to defer to his judgement is why he opened this case and pushed so hard for my desysopping:

Bear in mind, please, my approach. I intended to get Vanished user to correct this mistake, voluntarily, in such a way as could appear a personal realisation that something had not been right, something had been excessive. In such a way that no review process had been needed. An admin had reconsidered an indef block, had read the log - "gosh, that was too strong - a month is enough - didn't mean to put it that way". Unblocks, leaves a Talk page note to MH. Vanished user and I would have had a little secret. End of story: MH might have left the site, but the matter would have ended in no fanfare. Why do we have a test case? For precisely this reason: the indef block was made in such a way as to obstruct this entirely humane and non-accusatory private review, discussed as between colleagues. Now, I would treat the next bad block just the same way: private email; talk page note, "did you have a mail from me?", no topic mentioned; another private mail, saying more clearly waht the issue is; another private mail asking for attention to the matter; a further mail saying you really ought to give this some attention, and, no, we should talk before you take this to any forum. Tell me, please, whether I'm not acting in the interests of everyone? As opposed to - I start an AN/I thread saying "Vanished user blocked badly here, and here's my case", and we get an adversarial discussion. Charles Matthews 21:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[N.B. I used to edit under my real name. I will be censoring it wherever it appears, and would ask that if anyone mentions it that it be immediately deleted]

As he did not get my consent immediately (though I did unblock in the end), Charles Matthews then launched a campaign of harassment against me, using the power of the Arbitration committee to harass without fear of rebuttal. A complete read through of the case pages would be necessary to see this in full, so I'll just give a couple typical comments by Charles.

Really, I'm upset now. This is just crap we are listening to about how the admin bit makes you a demigod, and it is death to become an ordinary mortal once more. I can't think legalistically about all this. I came here to Wikipedia to write articles, not to deal with moral pygmies. Too right I can't AGF of the AN/I shower. Charles Matthews 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) (and that in response to an appeal by Carcharoth that he calm down!)[reply]

No doubt you do object. I have highlighted quite a number of misleading statements you have made. You're hardly coming across the truthful, conscientious, responsive type. You just pass the buck and excuse yourself, endlessly. "Harsh" is interesting - very interesting indeed; but you will have due process, and a chance to defend yourself. (You indefinitely banned a user by saying "good point" to a load of old rubbish.) And User:Jehochman has it wrong. Prevention of further misuse of admin powers is the idea, rather than punishment. Charles Matthews 19:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

His harassment was not devoted to me, he also referred to other editors in the same over-the top terms:

At best User:Moreschi regards policy as an inconvenience for admins. And User:Jehochman here is a meddling hypocrite, at best.

To quote MastCell's response to the last:

“

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Workshop#Charles_Matthews_has_failed_to_assume_good_faith Since this case seems to be focusing an unusually intense magnifying glass on the minor failings of everyone even peripherally involved (see Chaser above), it seems fair to note that describing an established, good-faith editor as a "meddling hypocrite, at best" is remarkably poor conduct for anyone involved in an arbitration, much less an sitting Arbitrator. Unless that makes me a meddling hypocrite as well. MastCell Talk 18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

... and really. Describing someone as a "busybody" and a "meddling hypocrite" for voicing an opinion on a block at WP:AN/I? What sort of message are we aiming for here? MastCell Talk 18:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]

”

However, Charles did not act alone, he was aided and abbetted by the other arbitrators, who actively defended his right to harrass me:

"Let's try and leave Charles Matthews out of this. He's recused. The case isn't about him, at least not to me." - Uninvited Company, 20 December.

"You've missed UC's point, I think. The issue at hand is what to do about Vanished user, not what to do about Charles. And, as an aside, I can't imagine any reasonable editor thinking that Charles needs anything done about him. Paul August ☎ 18:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)"

Furthermore, the arbitrators were clearly not interested in anything I had to say in my defense: The case opened on 17:40, 2 December 2007 [105]. Within 13 hours of this, and before I had had the chance to provide a single word of evidence in my defense, Uninvited Company set out proposed decisions saying my statements were not borne out by the facts, to sanction Chaser for not having unblocked Matthew Hoffman, and to suggest I be desysopped.

The problems with this case have been pointed out for several months, but the Arbcom have refeused to deal with it, even to simply remove the harrassing comments by Charles Matthews.

A proposal I made during the case that I be desysopped immediately, in exchange for the case stopping, because of the health and RL problems being severely aggravated by having this case going on as well, was rejected by the Arbcoim in favour of dragging it out, coninuing the case, then opening an RFC. However, in July, the personal details I had volunteered in an attempt to get them to agree to my proposal were thrown back in my face:

"Since the full circumstances of the de-sysopped user were disclosed to the AC in confidence, the only appropriate way for this user to regain the tools is to convince the AC – the only group of users with full knowledge of the situation – that the circumstances have changed such that we have confidence in his ability to handle adminship without problems." - Morven, on WP:RFAR, 23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC), seconded by Kirill.

The arbcom have very consciously put me in a situation where only a full discussion of my private problems will prevent them from using them to say that the community is unable to comment on my situation, and that they should have the sole right to discuss what should be done with me. I do not trust myself to comment on their behaviour regarding that matter. Suffice to say that when I DID make a disclosure of some of the health problems of that time, e-mails I received from them afterwards criticised me for not being detailed enough, because I had still wished to maintain some sense of privacy.

Other users have agreed that there are problems with this case:

“

At this juncture I wish to remind the Committee it has been my opinion for many months that the Matthew Hoffman case was the worst-handled arbitration I have ever seen, and rather than remedy any of its numerous errors the Committee appears intent upon compounding them. Hollow apologies mean little; I would like to see for starters Charles Matthews withdraw the repeated personal attacks he posted to the case pages. Ideally you ought to be vacating this case because it was requested in a non-emergency situation with no prior attempt at dispute resolution--thus outside your mandate.

Virtually the only other recent case that closed with a prohibition on RFA was the Alkivar case; the off-wiki evidence regarding Alkivar was entirely or almost entirely my own submission and I assembled it from public records. I have been never been under any pledge of confidentiality regarding that material. Until now I have chosen to handle it with discretion because of its sensitive nature; that does not oblige me to remain silent. DurovaCharge! 23:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

”

Likewise Raymond arrit et al, Filll, and numerous others, see the last third of the Proposed decision talk page.

I do not care about getting my adminship back, and I accept that the block was incorrect. However, for my own mental health, I want to put this behind me. Likewise, the campaign of harassment is a blight on the arbcom, and I ask the arbcom to vacate it, in full. As it stands, this case remaining is a statement that, if you upset an Arbitrator, the Arbcom reserves the right to open a "test case" against you with mno proevious dispute resolution, and allow the arbitrator to harass you off the site.

Furthermore, the Arbcom's self-regulation is clearly not working. A basic principle needs to be put in place that all Arbcom decisions can be appealed by the community.

For obvious reasons, I will be crossposting to WP:AN, as I'm afraid that for some reason, I don't really trust the arbcom to judge this case fairly.

Thank you,

User:Shoemaker's Holiday, a.k.a. Vanished user. 14:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If the committee would like, I can send them copies of some of the e-mails I got from Charles, or provide other evidence.

Response to Tznkai:

I am requesting the entire case be declared a miscarriage of justice, or, in less inflammatory language, a mistake. That doesn't mean the actions would necessarily be reversed, e.g. me getting sysop back, but the pages should be blanked or something, and the decisions declared no longer part of Arbcom case law. At this point, any other action validates the three-month harassment I went through as part of this case. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Kirril: Just blank all the pages and leave a note saying it's been withdrawn. That, or something similar, would be sufficient. There's some very nasty stuff on there. I am sorry about this, and I had really hoped we could have dealt with this less publicly, but, well, now that it has been, it's hard to see any other path forwards... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sam

In this case, the findings of an arbcom-initiated RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vanished user were overturned to make a provisional desysop. I am not asking for adminship back and am fully aware that under the current RfA culture I probably never will. What I am asking is for the committee to accept that keeping up an attack piece, where a sitting arbitrator calls people "moral midgets", "dogs", and worse, and in which they harassed a user into a complete breakdown, and then in July unethically used confidential information about that user's health to continue their harassment is something they should not be doing.

What, precisely, in the current decision is so important that it must remain a year afterwards, and how does it justify the gross personal attacks, harassment, and other such things? The only thing that would change by this case being vacated, is that, if I triedd to run an RfA - which I would of course, have no chance of passing, the Arbcom, out of concern for my mental health, would not be able to villify and continue their harassment, by pretending to know anything about my current state of mental health, now that I am not facing being homeless and starving to death, because they knew what my mental health was like when both those things were true. I will urther add that the committee ignored all this information about my health during the case, but only gave any sign they had any knowledge of it at the point they used it to attack me.

The Arbcom has violated my privacy, been part of a harassment campaign against me, and, in July, insisted that I must make a public statement of my private medical details or they would continue holding power over me forever. Show some basic ethics, and stop trying to justify the harassment. The Arbcom has violated basic confidentiality by snidely revealing my health details in July in such a way to make things sound even worse, forcing me to reveal them. Please stop compounding your offenses and let's make a full break with the past, so we can all move on. The longer the Arbcom continues to defend their past bad actions, the more these actions begin to look less like mistakes, and more like intent. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, I am willing to have Newyorkbrad or FT2 as a mentor if that will help ease the committee's misgivings about making the basic ethical decision.

Second response to Sam

Very well, let's put it aside. You have evidently not looked at the remedies in the case, or it would have been clear that there is very, very little that would be overturned The only restriction that came out of that case was my desysop, (which would not change) and the right to regain the sysop after 6 months by appeal to the committee, with a probation to follow. FT2's commentary makes it clear that this was intended to protect me, in order to assure that I can get adminship back again.

The actual change in consequences is only to remove a proposal that was intended to make sure I could get Adminship back, which I do not want because it involves the Arbcom, and, after what has happened to me in regards to the Arbcom... Well, let's end this statement here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Kirril's Motion

I am willing to be bound by an informal agreement that I will consult the committee, and, perhaps even seek a mentor in order to prepare myself, should I wish to seek adminship. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To FT2

There had never been an RfC, and no real hint that I was doing anything wrong. Had either of those happened, I would probably have agreed to be much more careful. This is why Arbcom is meant to be the LAST resort in dispute resolution, not the first.

Let's review the finding of facts you mention

Finding of fact #3 justify his block of MatthewHoffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) include claims of harassment, POV pushing, extreme rudeness, and vandalism... None of these claims are borne out by a review of Hoffman's contributions.

He was clearly a POV-pusher. No reasonable person would deny that. The issue was that there was not sufficient time given to demonstrate a problematic pattern of POV pushing

As for the rest, as described here, I missed some context that mitigated his comments, but there was, at least, rudeness and attacks on others, justified by the context of a grand battle. I looked at diffs, and failed to consider the full context, and, in the typical manner this case was handled, all these mitigating factors were thrown out, even to the point of claiming he was not a POV pusher.

Finding of Fact #4

4) Vanished user's block of Matthew Hoffman for 72 hours, and the subsequent extension of the block to make it indefinite, were both outside blocking policy. The reasoning used to justify the blocks was fallacious, and Vanished user was involved in a content dispute with Hoffman. Further, the justification for the blocks in part is to encourage Hoffman to "cool down," which contravenes blocking policy.

This contains an utter untruth': I had not edited Irreducible complexity since January, as a search of the page history will show. In order to claim I was in a content dispute with him required claiming that having ever expressed any opinion o a subject, even before you became an admin, worked out to a content dispute. Secondly, only blocks with the sole purpose to make people cool down is outside policy. WP:BLOCK makes this very explicit:

Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption.

The emphasis is in the original. Indeed, the block policy also makes a clear distinction between content disputes and conflict of interest, and, while the latter is discouraged, is not actually forbidden.:

Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved.

FT2 asks for evidence that the decisions made about the Hoffman block were unreasonable. The committtee scraped the bottom of the barrel in order to justify a finding that I was in an active content dispute with Hoffman, mentioning a 7 month old edit to the page as proof. Carcharioth lays out a time scale here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Evidence#Content_dispute_at_Irreducible_complexity_and_Talk:Irreducible_complexity, I presume that, ignoring the actual dates, this is what the Arbcom used to justify its claims of a content dispute.

In short, the heart of the Arbcom decision with regard to the Hoffman matter - which FT2 declares unassailable - is based on a claimed direct violation of policy that never happened. This was pointed out at the time, [106], [107], etc. - FloNight even responded to a seperate point in the first post. The Arbcom pressed forwards with this anyway, enshrining a lie into a decision about me.

Finding of Fact 9.1 This finding implies there's a lot more that could be found, when, in fact, it is the result of an exhaustive review of every admin action I had made, thus making it almost certainly a complete list of what could possibly be found. Every single one of my blocks was reviewed on the evidence page of the Hoffman case, and Kirril can confirm whether he analysed all page protections, but given Finding of Fact #9 taking examples from my entire time as an admin, that's probably the case. If this is, in fact, all there was - and all evidence points to that - it is a much weaker finding than is implied by its similarities to similar findings of this type. Exhaustive or reasonably exhaustive searches should really be clearly labelled as such, anything else will be read as a representative set.

Furthermore, while at least some of the decisions were mistakes, there were mitigating factors:

Let's have a look at one of these in detail:

semi-protected Homeopathy a second time, citing IP "vandalism". A review of IP activity from Nov 27 - 30 2007 shows the edits related to POV differences and minor edits, not vandalism (WP:VAND refers)...

However, let's have a look at 25 November:

[108] - Vandalism by 202.168.239.186
[109] Vandalism by 75.153.9.52
[110] Vandalism by 90.203.64.154
[111] Further vandalism by 90.203.64.154
[112] Vandalism by 81.86.135.171

All of these are oobviously and unambiguously vandalism.

There might have been an arguement that the vandalism was not recent enough to justify semi-protection, however, the finding of fact says there was no vandalism, and claims that "The effect was to exclude IP editors with whom he disagreed as well as IP editors adding valid formatting edits." - implying that was my intent, when a review that covered just a two more days would have shown multi-IP vandalism and people having difficulty getting the reversion levels correct, reverting some of the vandalism, but not all. In a poorly-monitored subject, as Homeopathy was, this is problematic.

We could review the others. These had never appeared in evidence, and, by the time they appeared on the finding page, my health had crashed so far and, the arbcom having ignored all my previous comments, it did not seem that the arbcom cared what had to be said. Clearly, some more care would have prevented an appearance of conflict of interest, however, I was literally the only admin watching many of these pages, and most administrators had been scared off of all action on those pages, due to the poor editing environments there. Conflict of interest might have been an issue, but remember that the Arbcom case was the first procedural discussion of conflict of interest related to me, had any other dispute resolution occurred, I would have very likely accepted the problem and stopped doing the behaviours in question. The arbcom stated, upon taking the case, that the lack of any prior dispute resolution related to me would be taken into consideration.

I believe all the actions are defensible - not that they were correct, but that they were understandable mistakes, given the poor guidance I had, and that, as an inexperienced admin, I was working in one of the most contentious and poorest-monitored sections of Wikipedia. Had the arbcom cared to ask, I would have attempted to give my reasoning.

Here is what the community thought about these findings in the RfC that arbcom arranged to run, then ignored. Uninvited Company - I'm going to simplify this thread a bit, but I believe my summary is accurate - later claimed that the defense of me consisted solely of Scientific-point-of-view proponents and was thus ignored in favour of unnamed and unnumbered people who e-mailed the Arbcom in order to attack me. (Who clearly lacked a point of view?) [113]

On blanking I was told this would be done in February. This is far too little, far too late, and does not even deal with the errors of fact in the findings of fact mentioned above. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Flonight's proposal This looks fine. I might prefer it a brief statement saying the new statement replaced the previous content and decisions as well, but I think that I can bend a little bit to meet the Arbcom in the middle. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On thinking about this, the "no longer active" is so ambiguous that it could be read as meaning anything. If we're going to make a decision on this, it probably needs to be one that won't simply cause more confusion. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by involved party Jehochman

This case was handled badly. I think it would be a very good to erase it completely, on grounds of procedural unfairness. As there is no request to restore adminship, I see that the only action required is for ArbCom to acknowledge this open secret. Jehochman ^Talk 14:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thebainer, the remedy sought is to have the case vacated. The person in question is not asking for their admin tools back. Given the severe incivility contained in that case (moral pygmy, meddling hypocrite), and the very poor treatment by the Committee of the person making the request (RFAR with no prior DR, insufficient time allowed to present defenses), I think the request is reasonable. By failing to correct these problems when the request comes before you, you all assume responsibility for these events, even if you were not on the Committee at the time they occurred. Jehochman ^Talk 14:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be best for the Committee to pass a motion stating: 1/ personal abuse directed at named parties is denounced, 2/ you recognize that handling of the case was poor, and the Committee will endeavor to do better. Blanking the case would also be a good idea, because it is a poor example. The result can stand because nobody is disputing the outcome. I think these actions, which might appear symbolic, would have the effect of stopping further reference to the case. I for one am very tired of hearing about it. Jehochman ^Talk 17:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Blacketer, allowing the person in question to go back to RFA is hardly a concession. Their chances of passing RFA are dim to none. If they want tools back, the easiest way is via the Committee. Perhaps the case can be replaced with a statement that the user gave up the tools under a cloud and can get them back via RFA or appeal to the Committee. Jehochman ^Talk 14:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important note to FT2

This case started with the posting of a remedy, before the accused had time to fully respond. Then it was suspended to run an RFC that generally opposed what the Committee was doing, selective enforcement or making one individual into an example to deter others. Then the Committee proceeded to disregard the opinions expressed in the RFC. A variety of us have asked for personal attacks within the case to be denounced or refactored. Thus far, these requests have been ignored. I am asking for two very specific things: 1/ the Committee blanks all the pages. 2/ the Committee makes a public statement recognizing the poor treatment of those involved. Public insults or abuse require a public retraction. Three wrongs don't make a right. The fact that the block was bad does not excuse Committee members to personally abuse those involved, nor does it excuse the Committee as a whole from culpability for conducting a kangaroo court. Cheers, Jehochman ^Talk 16:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved party Barberio

The manner in which this case was accepted is at best inappropriate opening of a case without allowing it to go through normal channels of having a block overturned. At worst, it appears to be an attempt to game the system by a sitting arbitration member pushing for a speedy resolution in his favour without giving a chance for rebuttal or defence.

I'm also unsettled by the use of 'secret reasons' for the desysop and block on re-admitance. Nor does the remedy sit well with the committee's actions towards more 'establishment figure' administrators who have had similar 'isolated bad decisions'.

In my eyes, the case wasn't taken on correctly, and not enough time was given for a defence. So this case was not legitimate, and none of it's findings or remedies should be active. It should be erased and apologised for.--Barberio (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sam Blacketer

With all due respect, the Arbitration process is a quasi-legal process, and claiming it isn't makes you appear to deny the reality of how your own committee works, much in the same way people claim there is no bureaucracy in Wikipedia. This is not unusual, quasi-legal processes exist in many associations, such as 'courts' that rule on FIA motor sports rule infractions. You need to recognise that this is a quasi-legal process, and act appropriately.

So since it is a quasi-legal process, you need to make sure your actions don't prejudice someone's case, you need to be as clear and open as you can be, and you need to apply suitable fairness.

You are explicitly not the fire-fighting team tasked with making quick emergency actions. You are supposed to act deliberatively, and urgent injunctions should be injunctions not rushed rulings. If you do not know the difference between an injunction and a ruling then you probably shouldn't be ruling on cases.

It is well within your power to make a temporary injunctions, and then investigate a case deliberatively. Failure to do so puts the legitimacy of the rulings at risk. --Barberio (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it is my opinion that the current ArbCom claim they do not set precedent, while acting like the do. This appears to be a misunderstanding of what the word precedent means... If you have used the same 'principles' from one case, to another, to another, that is use of precedent. This is standard practice by the ArbCom.

Again, denying you use precedents when you clearly do signals a misunderstanding of your own role.

Combined with the growing attempts to create policy, and hang 'resolutions' such as Motion of clarification in the Tobias Conradi case up as binding rulings, is troubling. --Barberio (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Durova

This request was opened overnight without my knowledge, and I read it on my first cup of coffee. In the interests of avoiding another arbitration, I urge the Committee to consider this motion. In addition to other objections, I have reason to believe the case was initiated upon misleading representations. Durova^Charge! 15:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where a user is being disruptive...the key issue is the disruption... Sam, Shoemaker's Holiday was an administrator in good standing until this out of process case opened against him. He is now an administrator in good standing at Wikimedia Commons. He has been instrumental to getting Wikipedia's featured sound program off the ground, is doing stellar work for the new 'song of the day' main page section on Wikisource, and is in good standing in all other WMF projects where he participates. There has never been any formal dispute resolution action against him, except related to this case. Shoemaker's Holiday has contributed over five dozen featured content items across multiple projects. What more must a man do to demonstrate he is not disruptive, once a bad arbitration case labels him as such?

The case was opened based upon a single month-old block which he had long since put up for noticeboard review, while he was offering to submit it for a second review. He answered all other relevant concerns to the satisfaction of community consensus, during the RFC for which the arbitration was suspended. Yet the arbitrators never substantially changed the proposed decision that had been posted in the first twelve hours of the case, before he had any chance to defend himself. Voting proceeded despite his requests for time to study for university final exams, and the time it took away hurt his grades. I fail to see what purpose is served by retaining this case, other than as a showcase example for critics of ArbCom to demonstrate the Committee's inability to correct its errors or rein in its members, when they level personal attacks. Durova^Charge! 01:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, I agree that Wikipedia arbitration does not observe the precedents of case law. So far as I know, no prior case has been vacated because there has never been so much cause to do so as here. Durova^Charge! 04:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amending: Orangemarlin is a precedent, although an unusual one. Durova^Charge! 01:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To FT2: a single block and a short noticeboard thread is scant grounds to suppose that a 'newbie biting' culture existed. What did exist--and was well documented in case evidence--was a series of offsite campaigns by people who held a particular POV to manipulate Wikipedia articles toward their POV. The degree of organization varied, but they occurred across muliple fora whose participants were persistent. This created a significant dilemma for Wikipedians who contributed to the topic, since that manipulative element had already learned to exploit AGF by abandoning accounts after a few days or weeks and returning under new guises. How does one address that exploitation while maintaining a friendly welcome for genuine good faith newcomers? Shoemaker's Holiday's approach did not work, but neither did the community do well (imo) when consensus directed that indef block reviews occur on high traffic noticeboards where a percentage of threads inevitably get buried in the shuffle, and more pertinent to this review--the Committee's attempted solution wasn't any better. There has been a shortage of sysop attention for the site's touchier topics. A wise administrator who reads this case would take one very pertinent lesson from it: close CSDs, enforce 3RR violations, work on the image permissions backlogs, and don't even comment upon anything controversial. Eventually those festering messes will come to RFAR where the Committee that failed to assume good faith of site culture can cope with the result. We still need better site processes and policies, but that falls outside the Committe's remit. See fundamental attribution error. Durova^Charge! 05:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again to FT2: the case was opened under circumstances that would normally merit admin conduct RFC, and the only argument for bypassing prior DR was an allegation that a pernicious culture existed among the admin corps. That the person who initiated the request and made the allegation failed to substantiate it, and instead left a series of personal attacks on the site pages for two days before disappearing on an unannounced wikibreak, weighs heavily. Note too that the RFC for which the case was suspended established clear consensus support for the admin who was under scrutiny. He addressed the community's concerns to the community's satisfaction. The only remaining issue is his admin bit, and although the Committee's opinion is at odds with the community's he does not seek its return. The RFC was a proper RFC and will remain available for reference should that ever become necessary. The best portion of your concerns is sufficiently addressed there, and to the extent that this case is a valid one with reference to him (which I doubt) it is redundant with the RFC. Durova^Charge! 02:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Martinphi

I seriously question whether he stayed away from Wikipedia for several months. My memory is that he was logging into the admin IRC network under his real name immediately after his case closed. Yes, Shoemaker appeared 18 February 2008 [114], while the case was closed 13 February 2008 [115]. Yet, Shoemaker states above "I left Wikipedia over it, and it was only the active, constant encouragement of User:Newyorkbrad, User:Durova and a few others that brought me back after several months." Whether or not he believes this to be true, I cannot say. If he believes it, he's in no condition to be an admin again. If he doesn't, he's in no condition to be an admin again.

I have been the victim of his continued harassment since I took part in his ArbCom and RfC. If any action would give him back his admin tools, then I strenuously object, as he has continued to be an abusive editor since his desysopping. He already tried, by the regular means, to get his tools back at an RfA. He lost. He has lost the trust of the community. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 20:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My memory is also that while the ArbCom did not adhere to strict protocol in the case, it nevertheless went out of its way to ensure a full and just hearing of the case. It actually suspended the case pending an RfC. I have absolutely no doubt that if the ArbCom had seen anything in the RfC which indicated that Vanished user should keep his admin buttons, the ArbCom would have revised the case. Indeed, I am fully convinced that there were things which Vanished user could have done to keep his buttons: he could simply have said he was wrong and wouldn't do it again. He didn't. I told him how to keep his buttons, and he didn't do it. I believe the ArbCom was open to being convinced that their initial judgment was wrong, and the RfC failed to convince them. Certainly, Vanished user had many friends, who essentially said "he fights trolls, so excuse him." But that's not an excuse, and the ArbCom knew it. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 21:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved party Verbal

I have only recently become aware of this, and fully endorse Jehochman's view: it would be very good to erase it completely. This was bad procedure and sets bad precedent. It should never have happened. Verbal chat 21:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Krill: I think blanked and vacated would be the best option here. Verbal chat 09:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Kirill by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

A case was vacated earlier this year, though I'd prefer slightly different wording. If it is to be vacated, perhaps the Committee can vote on a motion that will replace (blank) what's on the case pages: "The Committee declares that the decision viewable in the history is vacated and not in effect. The history of the case pages are preserved for transparency." The Committee may need to issue a further report, or further statements that can hopefully help heal the wounds of those involved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it would involve removing the case from the archives. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm still reviewing this request, but meanwhile a question.) What case was vacated earlier this year? Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, I think he is referring to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin. MBisanz ^talk 13:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's the one - granted, the circumstances were of course somewhat different in that case, I bring it up as an example of how one has been vacated in the very recent past. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

It is time to embrace the change in approach that the rest of Wikipedia (heck, the rest of the world) have been pushing for more and more recently - this will become even more evident in the next couple of elections. A case was vacated earlier this year; this is another one that needs to be vacated in the manner specified in Kirill's motion.

Tendentious editing, civil POV pushing, problem editing, or whatever else you want to call it, is by far, one of the biggest problems this project is facing. Nothing can be compared to the detrimental effects this has on Wikipedia, the community in general, or those individual users who unfortunately encounter this sort of behaviour regularly.

I've read through this case a couple of times in the past, as if it were any other case. When I noticed many uninvolved members of the community engaging in heated discussion about it off-wiki and criticized certain members of the Committee in an extreme manner, my curiosity was sparked to read it again. I read part of it again just now and this finding got me emotionally charged.

The experience I had when handling a particular problem editor (not that long ago) was disgusting. A number of checkusers (including arb emeritus or arbitrators), as well as admins and editors should have some recollection of who I am referring to. The amount of red tape and formalities I needed to go through (and the time and effort taken) were immensely horrible. It took weeks before there was enough evidence to justify a ban on that problem editor for disruption from sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry - and even that was with some luck. It took months before I was able to demonstrate (for the purposes of red-tape and formality) that the editor had been engaging in POV pushing, extreme rudeness, harassment and general disruption. In any case, I am certain we have all learnt from it. I'm not unexperienced in identifying problem editors - particularly from the sorts of expressions they use, the way they approach a dispute, and the way they approach a dispute. And I'm pretty sure I've been AGF'ing in this regard too. That said, I have no doubt that Matthew Hoffman was one such problem editor based on his contributions.

I was lucky to get through it because of a handful of users from different categories. However, many editors, including one very recently, was not so lucky and left Wikipedia as a result (an arbitrator was made aware of this recently). I appreciate the help the Committee provides in trying to resolve this problem, but this case does not do that; it does the opposite. A large number of the community are afraid to take action due to what may happen to them (i.e. what happened in this case). We're willing to desysop an admin for using some clue and taking action quickly, but we're unwilling to desysop admins who take no action at all? Yes, there were errors in his admin judgement sometimes, but RFC is supposed to provide a 2nd chance. In any case, it's a moot point anyway, as adminship isn't the point of clearing the case.

The case is having a causal effect on editors leaving the project due to the lack of support for community ridding the project of problem editors as early as possible. Such an outcome is not compatible with the goals of this project, and further shakes what confidence the community has in the Committee. I request that the case is vacated in the manner specified in Kirill's well-considered motion so that we can all move on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I request that the active members of the current Committee do something - we cannot afford to put it as a last priority item or as one that can die without being enacted. Editors are having to handle this problem far too regularly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chaser

I was tangentially involved in this case. For the reasons stated by Durova above, I think the committee should simply blank the case, leaving Shoemaker's Holiday without his bit, but removing the restriction on how he might get it back. His not asking for it back gives ArbCom a good opportunity to correct their error without forcing them to the logical conclusion of making him an admin again.

The comments below belie how ArbCom decisions are treated in the community. ArbCom de-sysopping has been called the kiss of death for former admins returning to RFA; this was true for Shoemaker's Holiday despite the name change. Negative FoFs in a case follow editors (particularly project-space heavy editors) around the wiki. The final decision included adding a note to Hoffman's block log that ArbCom found the blocks to be unjustified. Shoemaker's Holiday, still an active editor, deserves at least the same consideration as someone no longer contributing here. He is asking for the Committee to once again officially acknowledge a mistake, but this time its own. In practical terms, replacing the page's contents with a big notice that the case has been vacated, à la Orangemarlin, is appropriate.--chaser - t 22:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not enthused about the appearance, if not the reality of rewriting history in the last sentence of 1.3. But I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth.--chaser - t 19:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by JoshuaZ

The central claim made in the decision to desysop SH was that he was involved in a content dispute with Matthew Hoffman. Given that the last time SH had edited the page in question was 7 months prior to Hoffman's block, does the ArbCom acknowledge that this claim is incorrect? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Sticky Parkin

I have said before that having negative findings of "fact" against them is very vile for the individual, especially if it involves judgments about a person's character, dismissiveness or other obnoxiousness (not saying this is the case here, but in general.) It would be difficult to 'vacate' an entire case, but I think the person should be allowed right to reply at the bottom of the decisions page if they feel false things have been said about them, otherwise a final judgement is made against them which will stand on wikipedia for years to come. Definitely an addendum should be added by the arbs if some false things they said about someone are later seen to be false- or those comments the arbs made which are later seen to be false should be struck out. Or is there Arbcom Infallibility? Clearly not as I like to think we're all partly human, and that arbcom can sometimes admit any errors or excessive obnoxiousness. Sticky Parkin 02:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of common ground by MastCell

It seems like significant common ground exists, though the emotions inspired by this case seem to have everyone talking past each other. I sense from the Arbs' comments that they see at least some validity in the idea that this case was poorly handled. The resistance to vacating it seems to stem from the belief that the case's conclusions were valid, even if its execution was suboptimal.

Why not just append a resolution indicating that the Arbitration Committee recognizes deficiencies in the handling of this case (ideally, the deficiencies could be enumerated; I offer a modest example here)? That the Committee intends to learn from those deficiencies, in the interest of quality improvement, but at the same time affirms the final remedies as valid? I hear SH saying that the case was handled unfairly, and I hear FT2 saying, "Well, maybe, but the end result was valid." Folks, those are not mutually exclusive viewpoints. MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just a note of aggreement with MastCell's comment. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Reformatted to include clerk and arbitrator sections.--Tznkai (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question to Shoemaker's Holiday: are you requesting that the judgment be vacated?--Tznkai (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved comments, also reformatted crossposted AN thread, added links. Please see Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Appeal of Matthew Hoffman for additional comments as they come.--Tznkai (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator comments

I'm open to doing something constructive here in principle; but I'm not quite sure precisely how that might be framed. Arbitration cases are explicitly not binding precedent (and not really even advisory precedent); so the "case law" analogy doesn't really work. We don't, therefore, have any established method for vacating a case, per se—overturning it, yes, but not vacating it. What would you like to see in practical terms? A blanking of the case pages? A motion naming the case as being "vacated"? Or something else? Kirill ^(prof) 01:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting in general, I think that there is here too great an assumption that arbitration on wikipedia works in a quasi-legal fashion with notions of fairness to the parties applied as they would be in a criminal law case in an adversarial court system. That is not how it works. The concept of fairness applies primarily to the project as a whole. Where a user is being disruptive for matters outside their control, then arbitrators must still act to restrict them to prevent disruption even if doing so appears to be unfair or harsh on the user. To express it another way, the key issue is the disruption and not what lies behind it. In this immediate case the active members of the committee at the time (I was not participating, having only just been appointed) have apologised for the way the case was handled, but not for the decision.

Where that does come in is when we assess whether to remove restrictions. If a user has been disruptive because of some definite cause, and that cause no longer applies, then we ought to remove any restrictions placed on them because they are no longer needed. In this case I see a great deal of argument about whether the original case was decided appropriately but I see precious little to inform me about what positive actions are requested, and how they would benefit Wikipedia. I would like to see this point argued before I go to vote. I endorse everything Kirill says above about the uselessness of 'precedent'; the committee refuses to be bound by precedent so in effect it does not exist as such. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Shoemaker's Holiday: I'm afraid that yet again a request for information about how to benefit the project going forward has been met with information about how decisions in the past were wrong. The most that I think can be done is to courtesy blank the Matthew Hoffman case, and I'm willing to support that, but formally 'vacating' it would be a meaningless act. I am at a loss to know how you interpret Morven's comments as an invitation to disclose confidential information to the community: they are instead plainly a statement that any application for your resysopping should go to the committee in order to preserve confidentiality. As you are not at present applying for resysop the issue does not arise anyway. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What remedy do you seek? I doubt the Committee would consider revisiting the outcomes, given the facts as they existed then and now. Blanking would achieve little, given that your account was already renamed, the case of course existing under the username of the user you blocked. If people are in a mood to be revisiting things, then let's revisit the discussion of problems in our admin culture that was the substratum to the case, which has not proceeded in all this time. --bainer (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Re Jehochman, I appreciate that what is sought is that the case be "vacated", but what is that intented to mean in substance? --bainer (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I joined Arbcom a month into the case, and so one of my first questions was to review it carefully. The case was initially brought to get a review of the rise in "newbie biting" culture, by reviewing the behavior of those involved in the Matthew Hoffman block and its declined unblock, and assessing if Shoemaker's Holiday had acted properly as an administrator. By itself, this was one block 2 months previous to the case. It would probably not have led to a serious result of the form Charles Matthews had requested. The case was formally accepted due to the divisive issues and to help resolve doubts, a reasonable view. Charles' Matthews also stated that a good explanation was still outstanding despite email requests chased up on the users' talk page in November.
On that basis, I would consider the case valid. But that wasn't all. By the time I reviewed, I found that there had not been just one mildly questionable block 2 months before the case. There had been multiple clear misuses of admin access, not just one, documented – easily sufficient (in my book) to show a pattern, and easily enough for an RFAR or a request to the Committee to take action. (See for example Findings of Fact # 3, 4, and 9.1.) It is common for a case to be accepted, and then adjust to take account of new factors that are presented in evidence. In this case the new factors included a worrying number of "bad" blocks, not just one. The most recent had been mere days before the case opened, ie at the end of November (and 19 hours before the RFAR case request was posted), not 2 months previous. Any one of those blocks alone might have been enough to formally warn an administrator at RFAR.
It is obvious and clear that the case process, handling, and so on, was extremely upsetting to Shoemaker's Holiday, some of which I agree with him on, some of which I think he's leaning on too much and isn't merited. Most of the case is history, and that's good. Shoemaker's Holiday has gotten past the issues mostly and that's good. But vacating the case would be asking for agreement the case was not valid, and should never have been heard, and I can't agree on that. I can only agree it should have been heard better in terms of handling than it was - a state of affairs for which numerous statements of apology have been sought and given and I'm at a loss to see what yet another can do. The case (and its final decision) were viable; the "how it got there" which is the issue, is secondary and has been discussed at length. The notion of "I need this case vacated for my own personal peace of mind" doesn't work for me since arbitration cases exist to serve the project, and there was a clearly reasonable and well evidenced project need for it (since bad adminship is a serious concern), even if this could have been processed, documented and followed up a lot better than it was. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(On a side, even if one looks at the initial grounds of the case (the block of Matthew Hoffman) alone, and nothing else, not one user has shown good evidence that 1/ Matthew Hoffman's block was in fact correct, 2/ The decision that condemned that block was unreasonable, or 3/ That an administrator who makes such a block, leading to controversy between administrators, should not have their block directly reviewed at RFAR. In fact it is the norm for desysop requests to go to RFAR without "prior dispute resolution". That Charles may have spoken poorly in his comments, does not change that the case was valid and accepted. FT2 06:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Update - I also reviewed the "remedies posted within 24 hours" claim, since it seems pivotal to the complaint. In fact one arbitrator did clearly jump the gun - Uninvited Company, who posted the proposed findings of fact and remedy on December 3rd. However if you look closely, not one other arbitrator followed suit. Principles are easy to agree (they don't change much, it's often obvious on day #1 what principles are involved, and they act as "recitals" of policy points likely to have been considered). But the next support for any finding of fact or remedy was on December 8, almost a week after the case opened, and well after much of the evidence (including personal disclosures by Vanished user) had been posted and examined.

I anticipate and accept though, that to Vanished user the post on Dec 3 by Uninvited Company might well have looked like a decision was already made, and may have made him feel there was no point posting a more robust response. I feel that post was exceptionally unhelpful, since there was no way at all that it could be more than a largely speculative proposal at that time, and prone to significant amendment. But this should not be read as endorsement that the case itself finally was wrong; the final finding was of misuse of admin access and when I reviewed in January on joining, and again this last week, this conclusion was very clear and exceptionally well evidenced.

(As a side note, one of my first recommendations for change in January 2008, was that a proposed decision should not be posted until 7 days into the case at minimum, for most cases, exactly because of my awareness of this matter.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

There are 11 active arbitrators (excluding one recusal) on these motions, so the majority is 6.

1) All pages of the Matthew Hoffman case shall be blanked and replaced with a notice that the case is vacated. This is done with the understanding that Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs) shall consult with the Committee should he wish to become an administrator.

Support:

Kirill ^(prof) 21:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the discussion that are happening all over Wikipedia on this topic now, and remember the past discussions, I think that we need to step up and recognize that we got this wrong and fix it. We need to vacate this ruling. If needed we can write a short factual statement that explains the reason for the desysop. This is better than having a standing ruling that much of the Community thinks is dead wrong. FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Second choice. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Would not vacate, for reasons above. Whatever the closure value of this might be, and however much upset some parts of the handling may have caused, the roots of the case itself were serious, valid, and the case appropriately brought to RFAR, when I reviewed it. Many users have objections to an RFAR case where they were parties, but vacating a case implies more than "some process lapses". It would imply the entire case had no grounds, or that a massive mistake of fact that was later recognized, means that the beliefs the decision was based upon, were grossly mistaken. Even if one looked at the initial grounds of the case request alone, and nothing else, the case was valid. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. I would support courtesy blanking but not 'vacating'. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per FT2, Sam. James F. (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Prefer 1.3 below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I think the conclusions reached in the case were sound, I've decided to abstain from all of these motions as I did not participate in the case. --bainer (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.1) All pages of the Matthew Hoffman case shall be courtesy blanked. This is done with the understanding that Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs) shall consult with the Committee should he wish to become an administrator.

Support:

Second choice, although frankly I can't fathom what the benefit of blanking but not vacating is, at this late stage. Kirill ^(prof) 05:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I do not think we need a motion to do it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Not enough. If we need to start over and write the an accurate factual statement about why he lost the tools, then we can do it. Blanking a ruling helps, but there are real issues with the ruling that need to be addressed, I think. FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Flo. James F. (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Prefer 1.3 below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I think the conclusions reached in the case were sound, I've decided to abstain from all of these motions as I did not participate in the case. --bainer (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.2) All pages of the Matthew Hoffman case shall be blanked with an edit summary saying, "The Matthew Hoffman case ruling is no longer active", and will be replaced with the statement, "After receiving feedback about the use of his administrative tools, Shoemaker's Holiday voluntarily agreed to give up his tools and in the future to consult with the Arbitration Committee should he want to have them returned."

Support:

Adam and I discussed wording and he agreed to something along these lines. (Adam, I tweaked it a little but don't think I changed the meaning of our agreed wording. Let me know if you think differently.) I think that this is a fair statement about what happened. Mistakes were made by many people in this situation. It is for the best if we all put it behind us and move on. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC) First choice. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^(prof) 01:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Oppose on grounds that "the case ruling is no longer active" is a meaningless phrase. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per my opposition to 1.0. James F. (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Prefer 1.3 below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I think the conclusions reached in the case were sound, I've decided to abstain from all of these motions as I did not participate in the case. --bainer (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.3) In light of all the circumstances presented, the findings and remedies contained in this committee's decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman are withdrawn insofar as they reflect adversely on the editor identified as "Vanished user." A notation to this effect will be made on the case pages, which have already been courtesy blanked. This action is based on the cumulative circumstances, and does not constitute a precedent for the routine withdrawal or vacating of arbitration decisions based on later disagreement with the decisions reached. The committee notes that after receiving feedback about the use of his administrator tools, Shoemaker's Holiday voluntarily agreed to give up his tools and to consult with the Arbitration Committee should he wish to become an administrator in the future.

Support

After careful consideration, propose this wording as the best expression of what should reasonably be done. Uncharacteristically, I will not add further to the very substantial discussion that the case has already received. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine too. Kirill ^(prof) 06:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept this wording and hope it helps remove some of the hurt in this case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept this, though per FT2, I have concerns that this will be seen in the wrong light. James F. (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

On principle. Findings that were properly decided, and accurately represent principles, actions, incidents, decisions, and communal norms related to these, would remain valid. I'm not quite sure how one "unfinds" that admin tools were misused, for example, when the evidence even on review makes it clear to an uninvolved administrator or user that this was the case. While I am acutely aware of the hurt felt (I've been a strong supporter of Shoemaker's holiday for as long as I've known him), any party in any case may feel "hurt" -- this isn't a good enough reason for removing valid verifiable findings of a case even if the processes that case followed leave a lot to be desired. This would be the same regardless of any standing of the requesting party.
The aim in this motion is to reduce the upset felt by a user, which I support... but at the cost of "unfinding" matters that genuinely took place and that were rightly deemed improper by the Committee, undertaken by that user. Specifically, multiple other users were blocked, and multiple other users were prevented from editing by utterly wrongful protection applied by an administrator who was heavily involved in editing "against" them; some users were described on the wiki as vandals who were not. These users mattered too. The level of pragmatism required to "unfind" these points is not one I feel is good precedent, or a wise compromise. I am unable to endorse a proposed decision to do so. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Although I think the conclusions reached in the case were sound, I've decided to abstain from all of these motions as I did not participate in the case. --bainer (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 *[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&oldid=256652531#Inappropriate_editing_by_User:Cirt_on_Scientology_pages Arbitration enforcement]
 *[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&oldid=256652531#Scientology_and_related_articles Arbitration enforcement]
-*[[Talk:List_of_new_religious_movements/Archive_1#Request_for_Comment_-_Supremacist_Religions|Request for Comment - Supremacist Religions]] ([[Talk:List of new religious movements]])
+*[[Talk:List_of_new_religious_movements/Archive_1#Request_for_Comment_-_Supremacist_Religions|RFC - Supremacist Religions]] ([[List of new religious movements]])
+*[[Talk:David_Miscavige/Archive_2#Source.2C_interview_discussion_about_David_Miscavige|RFC - Source, interview discussion about David Miscavige]] ([[David Miscavige]])
 ==== Statement by [[User:Durova|Durova]] ====