Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:52, 17 January 2008

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

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	8 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

The Television Episodes Edit Wars

Initiated by John254 at 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Casliber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Geni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sesshomaru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Collectonian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Roses2at (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Eusebeus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Pixelface (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ned Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tim Q. Wells (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters

There has been an extended and inconclusive discussion of the most recent edit warring at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Edit warring on episodes articles

Statement by John254

In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters#Parties_urged, this Committee found that

The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute.

Actually, however, the participants in this content dispute have choosen to settle the matter through massive edit warring -- for example, see the page histories of A Mattress on Wheels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and The Man Who Killed Batman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A review of Special:Contributions/TTN clearly indicates that these edit wars have affected a large number of articles, and have therefore become quite disruptive. For instance, TTN re-redirected 8 articles in a single minute on 20:40, 13 January 2008 [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. Of course, the Arbitration Committee is not asked to resolve the underlying content dispute on its merits, or even to interpret the present state of community consensus regarding this issue. However, edit warring this severe presents clear user conduct issues that are amenable to resolution by the Arbitration Committee. John254 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the statement by Collectonian, I have included all the users who I found to be involved in these edit wars as parties to the case, without attempting to ascertain their degree of involvement or relative fault. Should this case be accepted, users with only incidental involvement obviously would not have any findings or remedies issued against them. Moreover, because I have not scrutinized the page history of every involved article, there may be some users with significant involvement in the edit wars who I have neglected to include, and who would need to be added to this case. John254 02:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Eusebeus (talk · contribs) and Pixelface (talk · contribs) to this request. Both of these users are clearly involved in the edit warring over the redirection of a large number of articles -- for Eusebeus, see [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27], and for Pixelface see [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]. John254 04:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even after this request for arbitration was filed, TTN continued unabated in his edit warring over the redirection of television episode articles -- see [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68]. John254 21:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TTN engaged in even more edit warring over the redirection of articles recently -- see [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76]. John254 03:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collectonian

I was not involved in the Episode and Characters RfA in any way, shape, or form. I request an explanation as to why I have been included in this second RfA and evidence that I have been involved in "massive edit warring" regarding episode articles, as I only did a single revert in the two articles mentioned as per some discussion over in ANI. I did not repeat the revert and didn't even put the page in my watch list. So please provide evidence specific to me. Collectonian (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sesshomaru

I'd like to know myself how I've been involved in this get up. One revert, to me, does not count as "edit warring". If I'm listed here because I often side with TTN on occasions regarding WP:EPISODE and WP:NN, then I suggest that you, John254, remove me from this nonsense. Bear you any sufficient evidence in my part in this so-called "ploy"? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate, see explanation.Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sceptre

This is a case that needs to be examined more in more detail. The previous RfAr did nothing at all to stop the edit wars. Will ^(talk) 03:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Casliber

My involvement in this particular standoff began a few hours ago when I noted the rollback of individual episodes of a famous British sitcom Open All Hours. Though (as anyone would guess looking through my contribs) I am an inclusionist, I have abided by results of AfD debates. However, I noted this one had not been discussed at TTN had merged content and removed redlinks without any formal process, so I reverted [77] and recommended that this be taken up at AfD. Another contributor BlackKite, whose views lie more with the TTN than mine I'd guess has conceded [78] that these episodes are likely to have sources. Upon which I was reverted by TTN, [79], then User:Sesshomaru, [80] and User:Eusebeus on one of the episodes [81]

The rationale used is that it is a redirect not a delete, yet the material on the episode pages is deleted (and no attempt was made to move any material over to the parent page). AfD is about debating whether a particular article should exist as such on wikipedia and whether there is a link to a larger article or not is irrelevant. I am concerned that what is happening is Gaming the system to bypass AfD and avoid analysis over removal of material. It is certainly inconsistent with recent policy on AfD. Even Wikipedia:N#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines suggests some sort of time frame rather than minutes. If hoaxes and other such material gets a few days then why the need to remove instantly?

All I asked for was that the material be discussed at AfD to obtain a broader consensus.

I note TTN has voiced this opinion at the last hearing, however I have not seen that happening today.

I note in this debate, there has been criticism over the speed it came after this one.

I should point out there have been other editors involved in several other debates over the past few months with different TV series, so that restricting this debate to these two series and these participants may not be helpful in the long run - in agrement with Sceptre above. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Crotalus that part of the issue is where we draw the line at notability and essentially how much detail/depth wikipedia should go into. The great pity is that large swathes of material is deleted after there has only been a cursory, if any, look for independent sources. Sadly, much is not directly accessible online and requires actually having written material. In this way I feel WP can raise the standard of much pop. culture material that is circulated. Many editors are young who have never seen a university library and the wealth of material therein.

Finally, I should add that the above is complicated by the fact that TTN is showing behaviour consistent with being a Single-purpose account with the agenda of removing as much TV-related material as possible, and has become fixated upon it, whether rightly or wrongly. From the issues at AN/I and frequency of conflict I see an inability to interact constructively with others who do not share his (her?) point of view. If we are to presume this zeal is from a dedication to the project, I do not see anything in the way of contributing to the encyclopedia (though there was a little to start off with in 2006) and I find it hard to believe the motive is positive (i.e. benefit to Wikipedia) rather than from a negative reason (i.e. some form of massive vandalism). However, I am happy to wait for Arbcom and work collaboratively with all concerned in the future. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firsfron

Sesshomaru states above that he should not be a party to this case because he only did one revert, but what he actually did was one revert on each article, and all he was doing was reverting what the last editor did, in its entirety, in reverse order (there are no articles in that run that were not reverted to the version by TTN). There is no way that Sesshomaru was checking what he was doing. He was just going down the list and undoing each and every edit without discussion, with an edit summary of "See WP:EPISODE, an afd is not required for cases like these". Firsfron of Ronchester 04:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Yukichigai

I wish I could say I'm surprised this has come up in arbitration again, but I'm not. Not at all.

I've already expressed my opinion on this matter when I started the previous RFArb, but to quickly summarize over 200 page redirects in 12 hours is way too fast and too numerous to be considered acceptable. I also think Kirill summed it up best when he proposed the Fait accompli principle in the last RFArb.

What we have here is a new kind of edit war, with one side attempting to overpower the other by virtue of the sheer volume of edits and little else. I had hoped the tactic would die off in the wake of the previous RFArb, but it appears that is not the case; almost all the "chief offenders" have gone back to their old ways. TTN holds a new record, having been a significant component in (if not the focus of) numerous WP:AN/I threads for the past 12 days straight, and a number of other editors on both sides are working on similar "accomplishments" as well. There is no way in hell this is going to stop on its own. Barring some Jimbo Ex Machina I predict that RFArb is going to be treated to a regular posting of requests to resolve this dispute.

If the Arbitration Committee does accept this case (again) let me say this: a final decision with no consequences for anybody, or at least no clear-cut determination of (to be blunt) who's being a dick, isn't going to solve anything. The community needs a clear, unmistakable determination of what behavior is acceptable and what isn't for this dispute to even slow down, much less stop. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 05:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie

The two sides are both claiming they're in the right, and are incessantly edit-warring over and over and over again. No one person violates 3 Reverts, but there's a heck of a lot of Disruptive Editing going on. This likely will not stop until made to stop, so on that terms, I urge the Arbitration Committee to accept this case.

However, I note with dismay that one side scrupulously notes the policies that un-referenced episodes of dubious quality violate, and the other side seems to point that because more of the same has existed, that by god, they should IAR, because it's UNFAIR to delete an unreferenced, questionably notable episode on "trivial pop culture show A", if there's an unreferenced, questionably notable episode on "trivial pop culture show B". I have even seen someone claim that because there's been an article on Bart the General for four and a half years, that there is no way it could violate policy on notability, verifiability and other encyclopedic rules. [82].

If it wasn't for the fact that it would be POINTy, I would redirect this myself (and I've not been involved in any of this until the most recent flare up on ANI). It is unduly long, has one reference to notability (that it was used in a humor study of the brain), and is filled to the brim with unencyclopedic, useless trivia. It is a wonderful article, for a Simpsons-pedia. For an EN-Cyclopedia, it is the equivalent of using a nuclear bomb to swat a rogue electron. Overkill. ArbCom does not make policy, it just reigns in those who violate policy. And there's a lot of that going on that needs to be reigned in. SirFozzie (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Er, no, SirFozzie, as I said above, I suggested the ones I was involved with go through AfD to gain a wider consensus.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

(please move your comment to your own statement, ArbStatements are not supposed to be threaded conversations, but I will reply). Consensus is wonderful. Consensus is great. I've been accused of even being a consensus wonk at times. Consensus makes the world go round. However, Consensus can not say "X is Right!" when Policy says "X is wrong!" Consensus cannot make up for a fundamental lack of proof of Notability, of Reliable Sources, and Verifiability. As I said, some of the articles are wonderfully detailed. They should be moved to another -pedia that deals with the shows in question (or even a TV-pedia). However, according to the policies about what an article should be, they fail on just about every tick there is. They're like kudzu, eternally growing.. but it never goes anywhere. SirFozzie (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to just applaud the WP:SIMPSONS project. The article I mentioned above was brought up there, and they went, and trimmed it, and fixed the issues that there were with the article. Which just shows that the policies are a good thing, and instead of having constant wars about them and atttempts to change or ignore existing policy, I'm not trying to be dismissive, but this is a case of SOFIXIT. SirFozzie (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ned Scott

Instead of a whole new case, I urge arbcom to just look at some of the proposed stuff from the last case, and re-evaluate that. However, even that might not be necessary, since those fighting with reverting are asking for a block. (I say this to both sides of the dispute). It no longer matters who's right or wrong. I know how TTN and others feel, and I know how frustrating it is, but we have to do something that tells others that we honestly are trying to help others understand, and not just doing things with force. -- Ned Scott 08:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not involved in this specific set of articles, but as someone who said they'd watch for these situations to help avoid them, I'd like to be added as a party. Although, again, I urge arbcom to just add something onto the past case, instead of a whole new case. -- Ned Scott 01:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fut.Perf.

We are talking not just about enforcing consensus here, we are talking about enforcing fundamental policy. Episode articles that consist only of plot renarration (note: plot "summary" would be a euphemism in most cases) infringe on copyrights. Plot summaries must be subordinate to encyclopedic analysis. Where that is not the case, they must be ruthlessly removed just like unjustified non-free images. Same legal situation, same policy. I've personally given block warnings to people who reinstate them. If that makes me a party to this case, so be it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Crotalus horridus

I disagree with Future Perfect's analysis. There is no evidence that any of these plot summaries in any way violate copyright. A complete (or nearly complete) transcript would probably do so, but these don't come close to that. Furthermore, most episode articles do not consist only of plot summaries; they often contain lists of trivia (which are unencyclopedic, but do improve the case for fair use) or other commentary. Even if an episode article did consist entirely of a plot summary, it would have to be taken in the context of Wikipedia as a whole, where it is a tiny fraction of the material, most of which is GFDL. Please remember to avoid copyright paranoia. No one has cited a single case where any website has ever been sent a takedown notice over plot summaries. Furthermore, no one at the Foundation has ever raised any issue with the lengthy, in-universe discussion on Wikimedia sites such as Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia (nor should they).

Framing this as a copyright issue is inaccurate and unhelpful. Rather, this is a disagreement about what kind of encyclopedia Wikipedia should be, and what the threshold of inclusion should be for trivia. I do not think that trivia and in-universe plot summaries have any place in a mainstream encyclopedia, but I do think that they need and deserve their own site. I have, on several occasions, proposed a project fork to handle such materials. I think this will prove to be the only viable long-term solution. *** Crotalus *** 11:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pixelface

Short version
I'm really not surprised the issue of television episode articles is again before the committee, but I do not believe I have been involved in any edit wars over television episodes articles. On January 13, 2008 I removed redirects from 96 Scrubs episode articles and then discovered an ANI thread had been initiated[83] against me. It should be noted that Corvus cornix did not leave a message on my talk page asking me to stop before he initiated that ANI thread. Four minutes after initiating[84] that ANI thread and after I had removed 96 redirects, on January 13, 2008 at 22:22 (UTC), Corvus cornix left a {{ANI-notice}} on my talk page[85] and informed me there was currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents involving me. Corvus cornix said "Pixelface is reverting all of TTN's edits." and that is patently false. I was removing redirects from Scrubs episode articles because there appeared to me to be no consensus for those articles be redirects on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. After the ANI thread began, I removed 3 more redirects from Scrubs episode articles and then stopped removing them. I have been open to discuss my edits. No action was brought against me. I've never been accused before of edit-warring after performing one edit to several articles I've never edited before, and such a definition of "edit war" is news to me.

Long version
If this statement is too long, arbitrators or clerks are free to refactor it or remove it. I believe I first became aware of television episode articles being turned into redirects in October 2007. On October 17, 2007, I removed several {{merge}} tags that were placed on articles linked from List of Pee-wee's Playhouse episodes. I believe my first interaction with TTN occurred in October 2007 on Talk:List of Pee-wee's Playhouse episodes. I asked[86] TTN about The Simpsons episode articles at that time. His reply[87] seemed to indicate to me that The Simpsons episode articles did not each have to assert individual notability — they inherited notability from their Good or Featured articles.

After the Pee-wee's Playhouse episode articles were redirected, I added[88] what I thought was real-world information to the episode article To Tell the Tooth, but TTN decided to redirect the article anyway.[89] Seeing that real-world information was not going to make the article stay around, I didn't edit them further.

I was not an involved party in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters case but I did make 6 edits to the talk page of the Proposed decision from December 15-17, 2007, suggesting that List of South Park episodes be changed to List of The Simpsons episodes in the proposed decision.[90][91][92][93][94][95]

From December 16-18, 2007, I left 4 comments on TTN's talk page[96][97][98][99] asking about The Simpsons (season 16) and why he felt those articles did not need redirects.

I made several edits to the /Workshop during the arbitration case. I proposed a remedy during that case that TTN must notify the major contributors of an article after placing a {{merge}} tag in an article and I still think that's a good idea. On December 22, 2007, I create a template called {{mergenote}} for this purpose, similar to {{AFDNote}}, and I encourage editors to use it. I left a comment on WT:MERGE about it. I believe I have used that template in one instance, to inform the major contributors of various Dragon Ball film articles that there was a merge discussion taking place at Talk:List of Dragon Ball films. I found the major contributors of those articles using Aka's history stats tool.

On January 13, 2008, I made several comments at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes and later removed two sections from the guideline WP:EPISODE [100][101] This was reverted by Collectonian and she left a {{uw-delete1}} template on my talk page. I then explained my edits at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes [102] and made some more comments at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes. I then made some comments at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes, which looked to me to indicate that there is no consensus for the Scrubs episode articles to be redirects.

In my text editor I prepared a list of urls to each of the Scrubs episode articles as they appear in List of Scrubs episodes, adding "&redirect=no" to the end of the urls. On January 13, 2008 at 21:47, I began[103] removing the redirects from the Scrubs episode articles by going to the urls I had prepared, looking at the history, and undoing the redirects. Initially I left no additional comment in my edit summary, just the standard undo message. After undoing 27 edits which took me 13 minutes, I began to include an additional reason in my edit summary, "There is no consensus to redirect these articles", because I noticed the undo message at the top of the screen says "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message."

After removing 96 redirects, on January 13, 2008 at 22:22 (UTC), Corvus cornix left a {{ANI-notice}} on my talk page[104] and informed me there was currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents involving me. Corvus cornix left no prior message on my talk page asking me to stop removing redirects from Scrubs episode articles. After I saw the ANI notice on my talk page, I removed another redirect[105], made a comment at the ANI thread against me[106], replied[107] on my talk page to a comment Eusebeus had left[108], made another comment at ANI[109], replied[110] to a comment Rjd0060 had left[111] on my talk page, and removed 1 more redirect from a Scrubs episode article[112].

On January 13, 2008, at 22:36, I made my last removal of redirects from Scrubs episode articles with this edit[113] I then responded to several comments in the ANI thread, and responded to more comments on my talk page. I then noticed Eusebeus had left a comment on TTN's talk page[114] and I left a reply there that was a bit uncivil[115].

I made some more replies at the ANI thread. On January 13, 2008 at 23:26, I left a message[116] on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes that I would wait a week to remove the redirects again. On my talk page, Black Kite told me this was a threat and I responded a few times on my talk page. During the ANI thread, Sceptre archived the thread twice and I removed the archive boilerplates twice. I left a message[117] on Sceptre's talk page asking him to please stop closing the ANI thread, because I felt that I had to clear my name and people were discussing a block of me.

I replied several more times in the ANI thread against me and made 3 more comments at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes [118][119][120]

I feel that the current consensus among editors who edit actual articles and not just guideline pages is that individual episode articles do not have to assert notability by including significant coverage from reliable sources — as evidenced by the several sub-articles of List of The Simpsons episodes, List of South Park episodes, and List of Futurama episodes. I think it's biased to allow those television shows to have articles for every one of their episodes but not allow the same for other television series. The article Bart the General has existed since May 8, 2003[121] and it has never been a target of these massive episode article merge-tag/redirect-sweeps. The article has existed for over 4 1/2 years. As far as I can tell, the first reference to independent coverage was added today[122]. I believe that article shows that WP:EPISODE (and I suppose WP:FICT as well) do not actually document consensus but are trying to make consensus into what the editors there want it to be.

I feel the entire ANI thread against me was ridiculous, but I think the arbitration committee should take this case and issue some actual blocks. I believe their remedy in the last case was totally ineffective.

I do not feel I have engaged in disruptive editing. I do not feel I have engaged in edit-warring. I made 99 edits to Scrubs episode articles. I removed a redirect once and only once on each of them. But I am willing to be blocked for months at a time if TTN and Eusebeus are blocked as well because I feel their actions are seriously harming the project and sending the wrong message that episode articles are okay — but only if they're for popular cartoons. If the arbitration committee decides to not accept this case, I think WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT should be fully protected from editing until the disputes over them are resolved. The mass-redirects of fictional content should also stop. This case should definitely be evaluated with the previous arbitration case in mind. --Pixelface (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to SirFozzie's statement, *I* was the editor who mentioned that the Bart the General article has existed for 4 1/2 years, but the article does not violate any policies. The information in the article can be verified by watching the episode. And it's not original research to watch an episode and describe it — WP:PSTS allows that, it's called source-based research. WP:NOT#PLOT says articles are not simply plot summaries and if an episode article has an infobox, it's not simply a plot summary and does not violate WP:NOT#PLOT. There is no policy against episode articles. Wikipedia has several featured articles about television episodes. And WP:N is a guideline. When large list articles are split into sub-articles per WP:SIZE and WP:SUMMARY, I do not think each sub-article should then have to establish individual notability. These episode articles do not violate policy. Neutral point of view, however, is expected of all editors and TTN has shown he has no interest in applying the same criteria to The Simpsons episode articles that don't contain significant coverage in reliable sources. The editing policy says "During this process, the article might look like a first draft—or worse, a random collection of notes and factoids. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential, and have faith that the editing process will turn it into brilliant prose." TTN allows those articles time to develop, yet does not allow the same for other television series. --Pixelface (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to thedemonhog's statement, I do not know why she would say her edits would probably be reverted by me. If she turned an episode article into a redirect and there was no consensus to turn the article into a redirect on the talk page of the list of episodes article, I would probably revert the edit. Otherwise, I wouldn't. --Pixelface (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to User:Eusebeus's statement, I do not know why my removal of the redirects from the Scrubs episode articles is "ill-advised." There may have been consensus at one point in time for those articles to be redirects, but there isn't now — as seen at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. The long-standing consensus among editors who edit televison episode articles is that the articles do not have to contain substantial real-world coverage anytime soon in order to have a standalone article. Stubs are perfectly acceptable per the editing policy. Television episode articles with an infobox do not violate any policies. It's clear that the wording of WP:EPISODE was determined by a small group of editors who are trying to enforce it across Wikipedia as a whole as if it's a policy. Guidelines document consensus, they do not create it. It's unclear to me how having articles about television episodes makes Wikipedia a fansite. See the articles The Joy of Sect and A Streetcar Named Marge for two featured articles about television episodes. --Pixelface (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Black Kite's statement, I really don't know he expects the article My Mentor to develop into an article like My Musical as long as My Mentor is a redirect. Editors (and not just registered users who know how to bypass redirects) need to know that an article exists and that it needs improvement in order for the article to be improved. The article My Mentor violates no policies whatsoever. If editors want television episode articles improved, they should discuss the issue at WikiProject Television. I suggest they create WikiProjects for specific television shows instead of spending their time hiding articles by redirecting them. Sweeping the episode articles under a rug does not improve them and is actually an obstacle to improvement. --Pixelface (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WAS 4.250

Wikipedia's popular culture articles constitutes the world's single most useful Popular Culture Encyclopedia and every year it gets better. The Wikipedia we are trying to create, as the sum of all knowledge, is the sum of all possible encyclopedias. Help that effort to make it an even better culture encyclopedia within the vast Wikipedia encyclopedia that contains all other encyclopedias. Don't try to destroy it. I suppose if some were editing Wikipedia in 2003, they would have put up the whole encyclopedia for deletion because at that time no article on Wikipedia was adequately sourced by today's standards. We don't delete an article just because it is not yet perfect. We should never never delete an article just because it lacks something, if what it does have is useful. An article that has an accurate plot is useful. Lacking other data makes it a kind of stub, needing additional material. It should eventually be more than that, but deleting useful articles because they are stubs by one measure or another is simply pulling up crops because they are only half grown. Where is the sense in that? WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by thedemonhog

I was not contacted by John because I have not once reverted a redirect or restore of an episode article, although I have been following these disputes. I do not really have an opinion on the matter and even if I did, my edits would probably be reverted by TTN or Pixelface. Obviously, the edit wars need to stop, which is easier said than done. One can say, "everyone, this is ridiculous so stop it", but which side should stop first? A decision must be made. Either the articles should be redirected or they should be restored; users should not just be told to work constructively amongst themselves.

Why do I not really care whether episode articles containing only plot summaries are kept or not? I know that in the long run, I will get the articles of the Lost WikiProject to good or featured atatus, which I have done before and suspect that this is why the articles have not already been redirected. There are also reasons for both sides' actions that I can understand. I recently participated in a couple Heroes WikiProject AfDs (1 2) and voted for redirection because they are notable (reviews and interviews from reliable sources for Heroes, even on specific episodes are not hard to find), but this has not been demonstrated in the article. If an article never demonstrates notability, but it can, is it notable? And there are so many stubs on Wikipedia, one would not think that it matters if something is a work in progress—which is explicitly stated in a guideline, although it is stated in another guideline to redirect "problem" episode articles. I do not know what the correct answers are, but hopefully I will soon. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SchmuckyTheCat

I'd re-iterate what WAS 4.250 says above. I'd also that I find the idea of "consensus" around deleting episode lists with tongue firmly in cheek. There are a fairly small number of editors that pay attention to the episode notability guidelines. They've written their guideline in a vacuum without input from people who actually write episode articles. They lord over it and hound away anyone who questions their interpretation. The number of people objecting to these deletions, over time, has far exceeded the people doing the deleting. Here is how it goes:

A deleter comes along and redirects (which, for stubs, is a soft-delete) a series of articles from one show.
An objector says "hey, what are you guys doing?" and gets hounded away: "See, this is what our policy says. Too bad you didn't speak up when we wrote it."
Objector goes away, it's not worth fighting over with an entrenched clique.
repeat.

Clearly, at any single moment, the deleters can claim numerical superiority - but only because the objectors have never shown up simultaneously. That's a pretty thin idea of consensus; because it isn't, it's an illusion and we describe that as tag team ownership.

There is nothing wrong with stubs about TV episodes. Any TV guide data shows when the show was on. The show website probably contains some amount of production information (show serial number, etc). The show itself is a fine source for a (non-interpretive) plot summary. Ta-da, instant stub. Those doing the deleting should stop, it's disruptive to the project and community harmony, they've done a poor job of understanding sourcing in their guideline and are stonewalling any attempts to modify it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Statement by Eusebeus (talk)

I am indifferent as to whether this goes to arbitration again, although if it can offer fuirther elucidation it may be salutary. As the editor who initiated the recent redirects of Scrubs episodes and subsequently reverted Pixel's ill-advised attempts to restore them (which has provoked the latest tempest) I'll offer a brief commentary. When consensus changes with respect to TV episodes requiring substantial real-world impact as a basis for standalone articles, I'll gladly desist redirecting. But in this case, there has been plenty of discussion on the talk pages of the series in question and no basis for retention has been adduced for almost all the articles in question. This is a disruptive effort by a small and determined set of editors, steadfast in their conviction that Wikipedia policy can be trumped by the aggregation of committed interests and apparently blithe to the policies we have in place. That is shameful, given the clarity with which our policies indicate the standard that needs to be met. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. These actions are wholly legitimated by the standards we have collectively derived. Eusebeus (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

Bringing this back to ArbCom would appear to be the only way of reining in the disruptive editing which is occurring (and is not limited to one "side"). Episode articles are a tricky breed - there is every opportunity available for them to be made into viable articles that meet policy, but it is all too easy to create stubs which are plot summary and little else. Scrubs is a good example of this - for example compare My Musical - a perfectly good article - with My Mentor, which isn't. Other less notable TV series, however, have spawned numerous episode articles which are little more than plot summaries, and have little chance of being expanded past this state (example, another). In these situations redirecting to a summary page is without doubt the right decision. In my opinion if a number of editors who are spending large amounts of time attempting to wikilawyer their way round our policies (here, for example) would expend their time improving the articles to the standard of the one above, we wouldn't be here again. This is along the lines of the statement made by SirFozzie above, with which I concur.

Statement by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

Below is a chronological list of incidents reported regarding this matter, as well as some other relevant discussions, which provides a history (not analysis or opinion) of this debate and also includes the other aspect of this issue, i.e. fictional characters. Please feel free to expand this list if I left anything out, as I believe the below discussions will place the matter in context and provide a ready reference for any wishing to cite differences:

15:23, 15 August 2006: Revert war at Naruto Uzumaki

20:33, 23 December 2006: Zarbon

01:09, 8 January 2007: User EaglesFanInTampa using nickname of 'Jimbo' in signature

12:15, 17 February 2007: Power level (Dragon Ball)

19:16, 23 February 2007: Possible meatpuppet of User:TTN

18:52, 23 April 2007: Disruptive mass merging and mass deletion by User:TTN

09:29, 13 May 2007: removal

17:54, 16 May 2007: TTN

06:55, 1 June 2007: User:TTN redirecting

18:26, 3 June 2007: Deletion of useful, relevant, and interesting information

08:24, 5 June 2007: Mass deletion of television articles by TTN

22:06, 5 June 2007: 3rd opinion

05:42, 6 June 2007: Fullmetal Alchemist episodes

14:51, 7 June 2007: Are you sick of it as well?

17:57, 10 June 2007: Do you disagree

02:57, 25 June 2007: TTN

15:28, 26 July 2007: List of bosses in The Ocean Hunter

08:28, 4 October 2007: Gavin.collins

22:09, October 15, 2007: Episodes

16:00, 9 November 2007: User:Doctorfluffy

22:36, 21 November 2007: Frank West (Dead Rising)

20:44, 22 November 2007: Episodes and characters

04:42, 23 November 2007: Master Shake

01:52, 24 November 2007: Frank West merge

19:44, 10 December 2007: A big campaign against articles about fictional events

20:24, 23 December 2007: Using a mailing list to delete a template

05:44, 25 December 2007: User:Pilotbob

14:07, 28 December 2007: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes_and_characters

23:32, 5 January 2008: Help needed with Dead Rising/Frank West

07:33, 7 January 2008: User:TTN bulk redirecting episode pages

18:44, 7 January 2008: AN/I vs. TTN - A AN/I_TTN subpage needed?!

04:52, 9 January 2008: Bells (Blackadder) (2nd nomination)

07:37, 9 January 2008: Ursasapien and WP:EPISODE

03:30, 11 January 2008: Sonny (robot)

10:30, 12 January 2008: Jack Merridew

06:40, 13 January 2008: Episodes and WP:POINT

22:18, 13 January 2008: Edit warring on episodes articles

02:37, 14 January 2008: Request for Arbitration

15:22, 14 January 2008: Death knight

19:18, 14 January 2008: My Own Worst Enemy

20:41, 14 January 2008: List of terms in Tales of the Abyss

17:02, 15 January 2008: A Scooter for Yaksmas

17:54, 15 January 2008: Centralized Discussion

19:18, 15 January 2008: Wendy Smith

19:19, 15 January 2008: Kristin Westphalen

23:01, 15 January 2008: Droid Army

23:24, 15 January 2008: Xanatos (Star Wars)

Statement by uninvolved Lawrence Cohen

Just specific to consensus matters, if there is such an epic stink being raised by people each time these episode articles are being redirected away, perhaps it may be safe to assume that consensus does not support these actions. Additionally, I'd ask the committee to look at the validity of consensus developed in "back corners" of Wikipedia, that many people may not be aware of. How many people actually came to the redirect consensus? 5? More than 5? Less than 10? More than 10? We don't count consensus by heads except in special major cases (Arbitration Elections, Board elections, side-wide issues like the Main Page vote, and the 3rr vote), but it would be worth looking at how many people, and who, made these consensus decisions to redirect the episode articles that are the root of all these fights. Was it a valid consensus? It may or may not have been, given how nasty this is. 22:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Farix

I'm somewhat reluctant to comment on this matter given the divisiveness of the issue, but I will ask the Arbitration Committee to look into the edit warring engaged by editors on both sides. A secondary issue I like to see the ArbCom to look into is whether merging or redirecting articles is a form of deletion, a claim frequently made by the proponents of episode articles. Other issues that ArbCom may want to touch on are whether episode articles are immune to Wikipedia's policies, specifically WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOR, and WP:V requirement of at least one reliable third-party source, and the notability guidelines, if there a clear inheritance of notability from the series to the episodes that make up the series or do current policies and guidelines require episodes to establish notability independently of the series. And finally, does the presents of {{Infobox Television episode}}, plot notes, and quotes mean that the article no longer violates WP:NOT#PLOT. I also think that ArbCom needs to better define when discussions on merging episode articles are strongly encouraged and when discussions are not required. --Farix (Talk) 22:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved editor Judgesurreal777

The situation regarding disputes over Wikipedias fiction notability and television notability policies is getting out of hand. We have a fervent band of inclusionists who think that they can ignore wikipedia policies, and harass and intimidate other wikipedians. Having my userpage protected has been an eye-opening experience to the extent that people can, in many cases, successfully protect articles that are not in any way corresponding to wikipedia guidelines and policies without having anything to back it up with except "I like it". To yet AGAIN bring TTN here for of this is outrageous, and it should be recognized that those who would keep content on wikipedia must provide evidence of notability, not the other way around. It is also time to recognize teh vast incivility that is being perpetrated by inclusionists on wikipedia is not acceptable anymore than it is for "deletionists". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

There are two issues here: a procedural/behavioral one and a content one. The former, well, I've not participated directly in TTN's edits, but there is something to be said about the proper editing procedure that needs to be employed if you notify or are notified that several articles are non-notable. As the notifier, how long to do you wait for a good faith effort towards improvement or any sort of response before merging, or how do you overcome a vocal majority of WP:ILIKEITs that don't cite policy or other consensus for keeping articles; as a notifee, what types of good faith steps can you make in improving an article. This is the issue many of the above have stated. However, clearer resolution on what should be expected by both sides of such article disputes (such as what I suggested) would be good as to provide better procedural steps to follow to help reduce such conflicts.

The bigger issue is the content one, and this is a larger point of contention which, as I understand, is likely not to be addressed by ArbCom. Specifically for episode articles, three questions are being asked:

Does an episode article with only a plot summary and an infobox with dates of airing satisfy policy and guidelines?
Is an episode article (notable or not) consider as part of the coverage of the series that it is in, in that regardless of notability, an episode article could be considered appropriate due to WP:SIZE and summary style writing approaches?

And a much larger issue (which goes beyond just articles but includes nearly all works of fiction):

Does Wikipedia is not imply, deny, or otherwise refer to the concept of "Wikipedia is not a fanguide" and in what way? (This might be too large an issue to be addressed here, but certainly can be seen in the number of AN/I and ArbCom cases coming up).

Unfortunately, I know that the ArbCom is not necessarily deciding issues on content. Unfortunately there, we have situations where there are a large number of both editors and readers that have come to or otherwise expect larger coverage of fictional topics (given PAPER and regardless of PLOT and NOTE (and subsequently FICT and EPISODE)), and a smaller number of editors that recognize that the level of coverage that the former group desires is, in many cases, incompatible with WP's current mission and policies. I've been leading a rewrite of WP:FICT for the last several months and know that there is a very fine line of a middle ground where we are finding a possible solution, but we have yet to find it. This may simply be a case where we editors just have to bear it out and figure out a proper consensus. --MASEM 23:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To specifically clarify one point, how we deal with episode articles is a tip of the iceberg in terms of how we handle fictional content. The question Does WP:NOT imply, deny, or otherwise gives any advise towards the statement "WP is not a fanguide" has several implications:

Certainly with respect to WP:EPISODE but this also affects how WP:FICT is handled; this then leaves the question of, if fiction can be handled differently from generally notability guidelines, how do we show this?
In line with the typical job of a fanguide, does this or does this not allow for multiple non-free image uses in the discussion of elements of those works, particularly in lists of characters where the images are only providing visual reference
To what extent can we promote off-site wikis to transwiki such material to, in particular, given that some people have concerns on conflict-of-interest, Wikia and the Annex.
Is the coverage of in-universe details of fiction non-free use, and as such, has to have the same arguments for its use as we do for images and other media?

Again, I feel some of these are larger issues that do fall outside the scope of tv episodes, but some of these concerns should be addressed, if they are at all, during arbitration. --MASEM 15:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AnteaterZot

I believe that at their core, all disputes are miscommunications. The people who create the articles for the episodes probably wonder, "Why are some people so against my documenting these episodes? Why are they so against my scholarship, my thoughtful analyses?" The people who dislike individual episode articles wonder, "Why do these people write these things? Why can't they understand that these articles are not appropriate?"

Why do some people dislike individual pages? Is it because they think pop culture is not worthy of scholarly consideration? Perhaps. Is it because they perceive such writings to be poor scholarship? Perhaps. Is it because they think that fans of the show are parasitizing the creativity of the writers and actors who created the show? Perhaps. In my case, I feel that anything, including TV shows, are worthy of scholarly consideration. I have read many a Wikipedia article that constitute poor scholarship, but that problem is not confined to TV shows (although more common there than in some fields). But poor scholarship is to be met with cleanup, right? Finally, I must admit that I do feel that there are editors who are feeding off of the creativity of the people who made the TV show. But I cannot fault them; everybody does that to some extent.

The urge to document anything is commendable. Scholarship is commendable. However, when scholars submit their writings for publication, they must undergo peer review. In my opinion, consolidating the episodes into list pages allows for better oversight (read: peer review). A Wikipedia user can get a better overview of the story arc on a list page than on dozens of individual pages. Certainly there are many cases where individual episodes should have their own page.

Scholars are supposed to cite correctly. When I find myself writing long stretches of text on a topic without including citations, I become uncomfortable. If I was unable to find any third party sources, I would eventually conclude that either I was incorrect about the importance of the topic, and/or that I was engaging in original research. Now, if I was sure the topic was important, and nobody else was doing a very good job of writing about it, I would stop giving it away for free on Wikipedia and write for academia and/or get an agent so I could get paid.

So what do we do? If this dispute is about a miscommunication, then we need to communicate better. Then we need to find points of agreement. And then we find a practical solution. I'm not sure if I have helped, but I felt I had to try. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jack Merridew

Accept the case. This issue needs sorting and new blood on the AC may be beneficial. --Jack Merridew 13:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved editor Maniwar

I would like point out that this case is way above what is being discussed here. Please see this centralized discussion as well. There is currently this case, an admin noticeboard case, several RfC's, and various other discussions taking place. A solution needs to be had to fix this and all issues need to be looked at or this will never end and more arbcom, noticeboards, and RfCs will continue to be called. --Maniwar (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carcharoth

It should be noted that the smerging of a long episode article (shortening and merging the article) can result in lots of text being edited away and made difficult to work on (not many people are aware that the previous text is still accessible in the page history of the redirect, for example). I think there are several ways for the community to resolve this without involving ArbCom. What is needed is a solution that satisfies people at both extremes. I propose the following (previously posted at ANI) as a starting point.

It is trivially easy to generate a list of the page revisions before all of TTN's redirects, and to put such a list of links to those old articles, either on an external website or on a WikiProject page or talk page. Linking to old versions from within an article itself would subvert the entire Wikipedia process, but it is technically possible, so something should be done to forbid putting links to old versions of other articles in current articles. For Open All Hours, try this list of episode articles I generated from looking at "what links here", and filtering for redirects and then grabbing the oldid numbers of the versions before the redirects:

I would suggest that in cases where lots of text is being smerged, that TTN (and others) leave such links in a central place, as a courtesy to editors who may wish to work on the removed material and provide sources. There are already talk page templates that call oldid numbers for featured articles - the same sort of thing could be done here. Would this be a workable compromise? The redirects would stick, but editors are pointed to older material to work from if they find sources. A similar principle applies at Category:Redirects with possibilities. Indeed, I would suggest that some template is used (if it doesn't already exist) to group the redirects into categories of: (a) Redirects from episode articles; and (b) Episodes of ABC. See Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects for more on how that works. Thus TTN (and others) would simply have to remember to put this template on any redirects they carry out, and they or others could create categories to hold the redirects, and lists (using oldids) to the episode articles in a "episodes with possibilities" page on the relevant WikiProject. People could then pick a particularly promising episode that they have several sources for, and work it up to a full article again. There are other ideas, but this one could, I think, help avoid the incessant drama, as it provides way for both sides to work together instead of revert warring. TTN and others would help ensure material with possibilities is not made too hard to find, and those wanting to work on episode articles would still have easy access to the text and a starting point for debates.

I know this proposal is not technically suitable for a request for arbitration, but I hope it helps to demonstrate that the community may be able to resolve this without a need for sanctions. Carcharoth (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by geni

this edit summery by TTN dirrectly conflicts with the content of the article. TTN has repeatly reveted in spite of this fact. Since it would appear that TTN is no longer even skim reading the articles they redirect I belive that they need to be prevented from such activities in order to facilitate a negotated settlement.Geni 20:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note by Black Kite

Earlier today, User:Tim Q. Wells unilaterally reverted every single Scrubs episode article so that they are now individual articles. I have thus added his name to this RFAR as an involved party. BLACKKITE 01:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Accept to look at the conduct of all, and if possible, to provide some kind of basic perspective regarding the principles being disputed over. Not only follow-up of a previous case, but unlikely to be resolved by anything less, short of "blunt instrument" use of admin tools. It was hoped that general encouragement to work together at a solution would help last time, but it seems it was insufficient. The consensus related norms which might have helped, seem to have gone unheeded. We can try to do better here, I think. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have felt this issue needed additional remedies for some time but I had hoped that it could be done through a motion in the existing case (which closed as recently as 28 December). Perhaps the easiest way would be to reopen that case, but the issue needs to be addressed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian economics

Initiated by Zenwhat (talk) at 15:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Zenwhat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Gregalton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Coccyx Bloccyx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Brusegadi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

East718 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Childhoodsend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
AuburnPilot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Skomorokh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Big Brother 1984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
68.187.244.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sarsaparilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Karmaisking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

~~(Still in the process of notifying them.)~~ Zenwhat (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request noted. Skomorokh ^incite 15:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All parties have been notified. ~~Just in the process of posting diffs here to confirm it.~~ Zenwhat (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The request involves a block, substantial edit-warring (across several pages -- not merely those discussed in this basic summary), a rejected page-protect, ~~and wheel-warring.~~ This claim is demonstratably false. Coccyx isn't an admin and the appropriate block log is here [123] and no wheel-warring appears to have been attempted. A mistake on my part, apologies. Zenwhat (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All parties have been notified. [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133]

Zenwhat (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Zenwhat

It has been noted before that trolls are sometimes capable of winning successful edit-wars through sockpuppetry and having admins which support them block editors for intellectual reasons. This case appears to be such an example.

In this case, at my request (and anyone is free to reject my request) I would like the arbitrators to make the following assumptions about policy to be made explicit:

That there be roughly no assumptions be made at all in the case of evaluating my statements
No personal attacks against me or the accused (I'm saying this to be explicit -- not for admins, but for non-admins involved)
Invocations of past offenses are potential signs of bad faith, but not proof of guilt
The burden of proof rest with me to prove my case
That Assume good faith applies especially upon the accused because of the presumption of innocence
That, despite the current wording of Wikipedia policy, it be firmly recognized that User:AuburnPilot and others accused have an individual inalienable right to edit Wikipedia because of its core policy: A free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Per Wikipedia is not a democracy, this freedom may not be arbitrarily taken away by the majority.

It is not my intent to abuse wikipedian bureaucracy to remove editors I don't like. With that said, the evidence surrounding this case may be found here: User:Zenwhat/Evidence

I have no specific requests at this time, but would like the community and ArbCom itself to decide how this matter ought to be handled. Because of the likelihood that it will come to light and an "attempt to vanish" before putting forth an ArbCom proposal would seem deceptive, I now disclose: User:Nathyn is my previous account, I did likely make some contentious, silly edits, including vandalism when I was far younger. However, ~~overall, my edits were constructive~~ Actually, a quick review of my contributions shows that all of my contributions under my previous account were good. It appears I only vandalized a few times while logged out, with no actual proof of it, and my claims about past behavior are unverifiable, and thus put forth strictly on a voluntary basis Zenwhat (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC), I have never engaged in sockpuppetry.[reply]

I have included User:Sarsaparilla in this case, because this overall problem -- and the possibility of her being the sockpuppet of one of the above users, see here. Karmaisking has been included because he is a well-known sockpuppet, so it's certainly acceptable that he be included in this investigation.

Statement by User:AuburnPilot

I'm not sure why I'm named as an involved party here, as my only involvement has been to block Zenwhat for edit warring and a clear cut violation of the three revert rule on the Austrian School article (diffs: [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139]). Zenwhat was warned by several editors, including myself, before he reverted the 5th time and received a standard 24 hour block. My involvement is negligible, and I have no intentions of joining an arbitration case related to a single 3RR block. I would, however, encourage Zenwhat to familiarize himself with policy; especially WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR, and WP:NPOV. - auburnpilot talk 15:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I'm also not sure why Zenwhat names me specifically in his claim that everyone has a right to edit Wikipedia, but I firmly disagree with that assessment. Nobody has a right to edit Wikipedia; it is a privilege that can be revoked at anytime. - auburnpilot talk 15:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by east718

I am uninvolved aside from a declined protection request and this alert. Mountain. Molehill. east.718 at 16:07, January 13, 2008

East718, I don't have much to say in your case other than that your page-protect was clearly unjustified, when I asked you to reconsider your position you made statements that contradicted policy word-for-word. When I pointed this out, you were rude and told me to go away.

In the case of Auburn, he\she is blatantly a POV-pusher. How exactly a WP:SPA can get admin privileges -- I am absolutely curious. The list of names above is the list of people "relevant" to this case -- that doesn't necessarily only include people that directly edited such articles. This case is specifically about Austrian economics, but it is also more generally about the vandalism on Austrian economics, which is why I also invoked User:Sarsaparilla in the original discussion, though she herself has not edited Austrian economics. Zenwhat (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coccyx Bloccyx

Uhh, can someone please explain how and why I'm a party to this case? I can see that is is going to be rejected, but I'd like to know all the same. Thanks. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Decline. Nothing here approaching the need for an arbitration case, which is the last step in the dispute resolution process. There is no evidence of any attempts at even talkpage discussion of the content issues raised. In addition, portions of the request for arbitration are not comprehensible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. No need for a case is evident. The Community can handle any issues that need to be addressed. FloNight (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per both of my colleagues above. Can I suggest that Zenwhat's essay on Wikiliberalism may be more appropriate for a user subpage than in project space? Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject per Flo. James F. (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asian fetish

Initiated by user:Tkguy at 08:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Tkguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Crotalus horridus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Saranghae honey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Crotalus horridus diff Cool Hand Luke diff Saranghae honey diff

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Due to the fact that this personal attack involved links to an Asian forum that I've participate in, I felt the need to protect my identity and my postings on the forum from public scrutiny. I decided against RFC not only because it attracts too much public attention but also because the last time this was done on this article diff this brought User:Cool Hand Luke, one of the involved parties, to the article. So around 1/4/2008 I tried to contact an admin I could trust. So I used the wikipedia email feature and emailed User:Neil. I didn't receive a response so I left Neil a note on his talk page that I sent an email. I still haven't receive a response.
I then emailed user:East718 and left a note on his talk page.user:East718 at first claim that I wanted him to get involved with the dispute on Asian fetish. I wrote back that I was asking for help with regards to personal attacks on the Asian fetish talk page. I then stated that I would submit and arbitration request since none of the admin wanted to help me. He then replied that he didn't have the time to help me and that he was sorry and offered to refer somebody else.
I emailed user:Royalguard11 on 1/5/2008 and left a note on his talk page. He replied back that since he was the protecting admin (the page is currently locked by him due to edit waring) he can't get involved in debates. I pointed out that I was not asking him to get involved and that I needed help with personal attacks. He then wrote back that he had trouble finding the personal attack links in my email. I replied that the links was in my first email to him. Apparently his response was put on the Asian fetish talk page and he acknowledges the personal attack but indicates that I am causing the problem for threatening to open an arbitration.
Posted on the Asian fetish talk page that I would submit an arbitration request if the Personal attacks were not removed and a apology was not made.
Posted a message on user:Crotalus horridus's talk page for him to remove his personal attack on me and that I would start an arbitration process if it was not done so.
- user:Crotalus horridus deleted my entry on his talk page.
Posted a message on user:Cool Hand Luke's talk page for him to remove his personal attack on me and that I would start an arbitration process if it was not done so.
- user:Cool Hand Luke, an admin, didn't delete the comments, instead marked it. This is similiar to his actions when I was previously attacked by user:Kintetsubuffalo by being called a "pedantic little creep". I called him out on this personal attack but then user:Cool Hand Luke rather than deleting this comment, he marked the comment and labeled it "Incivility, apparently from both sides. Comment on the content, not the contributers". I didn't respond to the personal attacks on Asian fetish that is the focus of this WP:RFAR, because I knew there would be a high risk of being labeled "uncivil".
Posted a message on user:Saranghae honey's talk page for him or her to remove his or her personal attack on me and that I would start an arbitration process if it was not done so.
I deleted the personal attacks off the talk:Asian fetish page diff. Tkguy (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tkguy

I was personally attacked and stalked by editors on Asian fetish. I hope that the arbitration board will punish these people and roll back their comments on talk:Asian fetish. The Asian fetish page is under protection due to edit warring. The involved party here intend to add significant changes as inferred below, without obtaining consensus diff. I would like the page to remain protected until after this arbitration has been completed.

Recently the seemingly perpetual edit waring took a very negative turn on this article. Rather than researching Asian fetish, user:Crotalus horridus chosed to research me with the passion of a stalker. Soon afterwards user:Cool Hand Luke and user:Saranghae honey did the same. Here user:Crotalus horridus posted on the talk:Asian fetish, directions on how to "research" me diff and discovered that I posted to an asian forum. He then proceeded to create a section on the talk:Asian fetish titled "==More about Tkguy==" and poplated it with links to some of the posts I've made 1st & 2nd 3rd. Of course it does not matter what I think or believe so long as I abide by wikipedia's rules. Here is the entire portion of the talk page with the personal attacks. user:Crotalus horridus labelled me as a racist by writing the following:

“

Tkguy is simply a racist POV-pusher and it's time he was driven off this page.

”

User:Saranghae honey supported user:Crotalus horridus actions by adding to this section with his or her own research on me here and here and is obviously working with user:Crotalus horridus in that he or she created a copy of Asian fetish here, while it is still under protection to circumvent obtaining community consensus. This was done at the advice of user:Crotalus horridus, diff. Saranghae honey's invitation to Crotalus horridus to update a copy of Asian fetish. Cool Hand Luke's approval of Saranghae honey's circumvention of gaining consensus.

User:Cool Hand Luke, an admin, encouraged more personal attacks by contributing to this section. He suggested that I should be blocked from editting diff.Then made the following comment diff: He then posted two links (first one, second one) to posts I've made on the forum. He wrote that this was wrong and then does this not once but TWICE!

This section ends with user:Crotalus horridus and User:Saranghae honey discussing about how it's ok to track what I am doing on wikipedia and arrogantly have this discussion on the Asian fetish tallk page diff.

I hope that the people will look past the emotions that the topic of Asian fetish invokes and see that I was personally attacked, bullied and stalked and will not let such actions go unpunished. And I am hoping that the board members will understand that the kind of actions these people are taking are consistent with the kind of editing and commenting they have been making on this article. Tkguy (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Admin board regarding involved parties' and Phoenix-wiki comments: Please note that all accusations being made against me are not being substantiated here and are possibly being used to draw attention away from the issue of me being personally attacked. I already provided proof that an admin is aware that comments made to me were inappropriate, Royalguard11's acknowledgement that an inappropriate comment was made against Tkguy. Even User:Cool Hand Luke acknowledged that researching me was not appropriate and then does it himself. And then he marks the section under "WP:CIVIL—remember, comment on the content, not the contributer". But I can't see how this is can be accepted as behaving in a "responsible manner, as expected of an administrator" after he made significant entries encouraging this kind of behavior. Tkguy (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Newyorkbrad: I am confused by your suggestion can you please clarify what "appropriate involvement of administrators" means? I already noted that I went to 3 admins for help. One ignored my request for help. The second told me to look elsewhere. The third told me that the problem is with me telling others that I will initiate an arbitration. Also note that User:Cool Hand Luke is an admin and is an involved party. So 4 admins will not help me resolve this personal attack issue. And the last time we on the page did RfC User:Cool Hand Luke came to the page and user:Crotalus horridus came back after taking a long hiatus from editing this article.Tkguy (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Saranghae honey: So you create a sandbox to avoid community input and you accuse me of pushing a POV? And you initiated the 4th failed AfD for Asian fetish AfD. Can you please substantiate your allegations that I am trying to push a POV? Seriously you keep accusing me of that but never ever provided actual proof. As for the stalking issue and personal attacks. Why are you trying to make it out like I am focused on your Sandbox and your discussion that it's ok to check my edits on the talk:Asian fetish? I pointed these things out to show that you are clearly working with user:Crotalus horridus and User:Cool Hand Luke. You clearly support user:Crotalus horridus personal attacks on me and his stalking of me off wikipedia. Tkguy (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Crossmr: I recommend all to read the content of User:Crossmr link. Be aware much of the references in it that user:Crotalus horridus makes to edits that I've made were some of the first editing I've done on wikipedia. As I am still, even now, new to all this. Even though I believe I explain very well the situation of the edit wars on the page. But still this arbitration is once again regarding PERSONAL ATTACKS ON ME that were not being dealt with. Tkguy (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Cool Hand Luke: Typically, I believe, disparaging remarks should be rolled back from the pages. You had the opportunity to do this twice but did not. Since you made your own personal attacks on me and posted links to the asian forums on the talk page, I don't think you can say that this issue is moot. Tkguy (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Crotalus horridus: Can you please stay on topic? This is regarding your personal attacks on me. You make all these accusations and not one link to substantiate them. And I want all to know that you submitted the 3rd failed AfD for Asian fetish AfD. As for my brush with the 3rr rule, well that was when I first started editing and two individuals, user:Kaitenbushi and user:Christopher Mann McKay tricked me into violating the rule. The admin realized this and reverted my block and blocked one of the other two, user:Kaitenbushi for violating the 3rr rule. They then blocked user:Christopher Mann McKay because apparently he voliated the 3rr rule on yet another page and was rewarded an extra long 48 hour block for his work on tricking me. Most of the story right here. Tkguy (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Crotalus horridus

User:Tkguy is a disruptive single-purpose account who exclusively edits articles related to Asiaphilia, Asian fetish, and related issues. By his own admission, he has an "obsession with proving the prevalence of asiaphilia." He has shown himself consistently unable to follow our policies on neutral point of view and verifiability. The Asian fetish article has been protected twice recently, when the only real edit-warring was being instigated by Tkguy. Everyone else but him was discussing issues appropriately on the article talk page. Tkguy also has a very unclear understanding of Wikipedia policy on various other matters. He was blocked for violating the three-revert rule a while back, and unblocked early on the grounds that he didn't know about the rule. Above, he continues to show poor understanding by implying that there is something wrong about creating a sandbox in user space to continue to work on an article while it is protected. Nothing in Wikipedia policy or practice supports that contention.

It should be noted that Tkguy's forum posts show up very high on a Google search for his nickname. It's not as if I did any deep digging here. If he wished to retain anonymity, he could have chosen any other nickname he wanted.

No, it doesn't matter what Tkguy thinks as long as he abides by Wikipedia rules. But WP:NPOV and WP:V are two of our most important rules, and he has shown a repeated inability to follow them.

I urge Tkguy to withdraw this arbitration request. *** Crotalus *** 08:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Saranghae honey (talk · contribs)

Tkguy made no attempt at dispute resolution. If there was one, the proper consequence should have stopped Tkguy's edit warring and aggressive POV pushing at Asian fetish. He indeed is a single purpose account that has done little editing outside Asian fetish and Asiaphilia. Other editors worked cooperatively and even disagreed constructively except for Tkguy who ignored several Wikipedia policies including WP:CIVIL. I lost my patience towards him long, long ago for a good reason.

Tkguy has no understanding of Wikipedia policies which led to a post at AN/I which has lengthy yet only a partial list of Tkguy's hostile conduct to users who disagree with him. [140] Crotalus Horridus did no deep digging when he googled "Tkguy." It's actually the second page that shows his activities outside of Wikipedia. I was not sure if I could comment on his activities outside of Wikipedia, but how can I not pretend to see what was posted on the talk page of Asian fetish? I was indeed astonished by his comments outside of Wikipedia.

Tkguy attacks me for making a sandbox. What's wrong with that? Again, Tkguy has no understanding of Wikipedia policies. Not having to follow manual of style or a consensus is the purpose of having a sandbox while I did invite feedback from several editors. Tkguy needs to understand Wikipedia:About the Sandbox. The part of his complaint also revolves around spying or stalking. Looking at "user contributions" of a POV-pusher is not spying or stalking not to mention that he only edits two articles. Editing the only two articles that he happens to edit is not stalking. миражinred (speak, my child...) 21:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs)

User is a manifest SPA.

I placed the incivility under a hat, which I find to be useful in discouraging future incivility. I didn't remove the comments, but neither did Tkguy, although I advised him he should feel free to remove remarks he felt were personal attacks. Eventually he did remove them, and no editor added them back to the talk page. This dispute is therefore moot. No other dispute resolution was attempted besides.

However, if Tkguy continues to edit war on the article once it's unlocked, I will press for RfC and/or community sanction. Cool Hand Luke 23:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed community topic ban for User:Tkguy on Asian fetish Cool Hand Luke 08:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs)

As far as I can see Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs · uploads) acted in a responsible manner, as expected of an administrator. The "Tkguy" section of the talk page does not look like a personal attack, though I can see how one would be upset by it — Tkguy is refered to as a single purpose account. Cool Hand Luke simply said:

Yep. SPA. User seems to be promoting a line of original research postulating that Asian American suicides, among other social ills, are caused by the Asian fetish. This is not a forum for original research. Moreover, user liberally accuses other editors of vandalism in support of racism. I encourage this user—and all users—to avoid personal attacks and original research. Cool Hand Luke 21:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's just a warning not to post original research or make personal attacks. He also acted sensibly on most other sections of the talk page.--Phoenix -wiki 15:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you changed my arbitration request from "Unfettered Personal Attacks, Bullying, and Stalking on Asian fetish" to "Asian fetish". Tkguy (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's quite correct to. Evidence speaks for itself here. Case names simply identify cases, they don't specify the conduct issues of the dispute, nor do they 'explain' the nature of the dispute or specify possible feelings about it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by partially involved Crossmr (talk · contribs)

I don't have much to add, but feel this link is relevant to the issue here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive347#User:Tkguy_at_Asian_fetish.--Crossmr (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Decline. I see nothing here at this stage that cannot be addressed by appropriate involvement of administrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. The issues here seem clearcut and have not reached the complexity which would be required for arbitration. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. The Community can handle this situation. No need for ArbCom involvement. FloNight (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject per Flo. James F. (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback consensus

Initiated by Doc^g at 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Jimbo has referred this to ArbCom as well. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Everyone here

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

extended discussion in AN
AN again
Discussion on Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback (various threads)
Discussion on Wikipedia talk:Non-administrator rollback (various threads)

Statement by Doc

Non admin rollback is a perenial debate, for which there is a long-standing failure to gain an community consensus. A poll Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges/Poll was held over many months from January 2006, and having closed at 216 support to 108 oppose (exactly 2:1) was deemed to be without consensus. Another poll Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback/Poll was opened by proponents of the idea on December 30th 2007. This poll (advertised on AN and ANI and Central discussions) was marked as due to close on January 6th. I discover it on January 4th - and with 48 hours to run - it had only attracted 60 votes, and was deemed to be "succeeding" with c. 49/11. Concerned over the propriety of a short snap poll over the holidays, I tried to persuade the initiators to extend it for a few weeks, when they refused, I took a lot of flack for "spamming" the official mailing list with my concerns. After that it was added to the site notices. The poll, however, was closed on 7/8th January (8 days) with 304 support and 151 oppose (exactly the same % as 2006 - nothing had moved).

Following the second poll, the feature was implemented by a developer on 9 January 2008 as noted at Template:Bug. - Since then, a new process Wikipedia:Requests for rollback has been initiated - and rollback widely granted. I understood that developers were only to turn on functions for wikimedia communities where there was a settled local consensus. As can be seen from the bug report, Ryan Postlethwaite presented 67% as representing an en.wp "consensus" and a dev accepted this (perhaps there were other conversations). Although consensus is more than numbers, this was the same non-consenus ration as have been stable for two years, and we don't even promote admins on 66% never mind begin a whole new policy and process - so how it can be presented and accepted as local consensus is beyond me. Every precedent has required more support that this. And the result is heated debate and a general feeling of community consensus having been manipulated by people determined to get their way.

Rollback is in itself no big deal. However, giving the power to 1400 admins to giveth and taketh away, gives alarming potential for disputes drama and the growth of process, rules and instruction creep. we have seen enough of all of these in 25 hours. Thus this impacts hugely on the project and is a potential sink hole for admin time. So we must not do this lightly on six day polls and a developer's bad judgement.

As this has been done outside of the community's process, there is no remedy other than arbcom or the WMF board. Arbcom does not make policy. The community does that. But the community cannot agree, at this point, whether there is a consensus for this new policy or not. Arbcom's role is to be a mediator where the community cannot agree. Arbcom should NOT decide whether rollback is bad or good. But I am asking them, however, to arbitrate the community dispute as to whether there exists a settled consensus.

Jimbo has already indicated that arbcom do have a roll here: [141] "ArbCom will discuss and vote on the result, and make a formal request to the Wikimedia Foundation about whether it should be turned on or not, and to establish the policy.... ArbCom will of course most likely follow the vote of the community, but I will not require them to do so. They should serve as a "check and balance" in the event something strange happens here, or in case the discussion shows a way forward that the vote itself does not accurately represent.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)" [reply]

~~I asking Arbcom to do something less than Jimbo has done. I am asking them merely to arbitrate the dispute as to whether consensus exists.~~

~~--Doc^g 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~Addition~~

Jimbo has said "I recommend that people basically do nothing at all here, i.e. please don't go awarding this ability to lots of people in an effort to create "facts on the ground" about how it is used." Unfortunately, that's too late. Within minutes (or hours if my time zones are wrong - but I don't think so) of a dev responding to Ryan Postlethwaith's plea that there was community consensus (2008-01-09 22:53:17 UTC), the other initiator Majorly, moved, a ready-made process out of Ryan's userspace into action 2008-01-09 23:05 and declared it "switched on" - a site bar header invited applicants to the page shortly after.--Doc^g 02:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Two arbs are saying that the community should decide this. However, the community DID. We polled (badly and manipulatively) and reached no consensus = status quo remains. A developed overrode our conventions and declared this to be mandate to proceed. What is the redress if not arbcom? How is the community to address this when a large chunk are content that they've got their way - and there cannot be a consensus to reverse it? Do I personally go and lobby a developer to turn it off? I really cannot see how we move forward from here. Discussion will end with the same lack of consensus and the normal lack of consensus option (=do nothing) has been overridden.--Doc^g 09:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw from this case. The Christmas holiday coup d'etat has been unprecedentely successful in forcing through a major change without consensus. All credit to them - I'd probably have tried the same if I'd wanted something as badly and had as little chance of getting legitimate agreement. But, now we effectively have a new status-quo in this crazy process - and I predict we'll rue the day. However, that's what we've got, and the chances of the community obtaining a *genuine* consensus, which could change this status-quo, are as nil as they always have been. Jimbo's haverings about the WMF board and a new poll make no sense to me, and arbcom are not going to involve themselves in any difficult substantive issues. Maybe they will wag a finger at Ryan Postlewaith at al (a nice, manageable, user conduct issue for them) but what good would that do? Consensus lost here, and that's sad. But, as the victors have repeatedly and rightly implied, the rest of us had best shut up and get over it.--Doc^g 14:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carcharoth

From what I saw of what happened here, this was largely a poorly-timed (over Christmas) and poorly-planned (no exit strategy) poll. My feeling is that the breakdown in communication occurred when Ryan posted in the bugzilla thread that he personally saw consensus and asked the developers to have a look and judge for themselves ("The poll has now closed with 304 supports and around 150 opposes. I'd say that's consensus, but please take a look."). It seems that the developer then switched the feature on for en-wiki (I believe the feature was already implemented globally with a default 'off' setting and was actually ready to go, unlike last time). However, a little bit of digging and reading around the talk pages would have shown that things were not yet clear. But judging a borderline or otherwise uncertain consensus should not be the role of developers. What should have happened instead was for uninvolved en-wiki bureaucrats to be asked to judge the consensus, and for the result of that judgment to be posted at the bugzilla thread. Ideally, the bureaucrats would have been asked to 'clerk' the poll beforehand, so they could remain uninvolved if needed. I will add that the en-wiki community (writing the English-language encyclopedia) and the community of developers (writing the software) and sysadmins (integrating the software changes) need to make clearer to each other how they communicate on issues like this. Carcharoth (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Gurch (and Nick and Acalamari and anyone else worrying that this is about shutting the process down): The title of the request specifically mentions consensus. I agree with you that for better or for worse we have non-admin rollback, and that it is bedding in quite well, and there is no need to talk about disabling or suspending it. The point here is to find out what should have happened in order to settle the consensus issue, and learn lessons for next time a change like this is proposed (eg. how to improve communications). Carcharoth (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Sean William: Thanks for pointing out Ned Scott's draft RfArb. The latest version before he blanked it is here. I agree with what Ned has said concerning issues of user behaviour, and would encourage him to post the statement he was drafting. Carcharoth (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: Other examples of technical processes being implemented, with and without drama. The "Table" namespace. The New Pages patrolled feature. Anonymous page creation disabled (and the nearly-implemented proposal to switch it back on).

Statement by Ultraexactzz

I agree that the questions raised by Doc are significant, and worthy of the Committee's consideration. Where is consensus? Is it a certain percentage? Or, to borrow a metaphor, is it whoever shouts the loudest? I know that every technical change is not approved, or even discussed, by the community - but when are the developers bound to seek (and follow) consensus, and how are their decisions reviewed if they go against consensus? I would argue that, in this case, the Arbcom is the appropriate venue.

I also note for the record that the admins who put together and operate the process at Requests for Rollback have made what appears to be a good faith effort to implement a process for which there was some disagreement. The approval of any number of editors (myself included) to receive rollback tools isn't, in my view, an attempt to short-circuit consensus, but rather an attempt to fairly and reasonably implement a new process. The issues of this case should be limited to the events surrounding the activation of the developer's change, including the process for determining consensus beforehand, and whether such consensus existed (or exists).

-- UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 01:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gurch

Just when I thought discussion was dying down, Jimbo decided to intervene and now this came up. There is very definitely a community consensus to grant rollback in some form or other, all that is being debated is the workings of the process. The current process is not perfect, of course, but no process is. I think the amount that was achieved in 24 hours was remarkable, especically given that it was achieved despite the bickering of many contributors who did not like the way in which it was implemented. Sure, it could have been introduced a lot more smoothly. But we've got this far... can we please not screw up now? Requests for rollback have already died down after an initial surge. There are already long-establised rules governing the use of rollback that can simply be carried over from administrators; the only thing to settle is the process itself. We as a community can tweak and get consensus for the working of the process in good time on our own, we do not need a committee to babysit us. If the Arbitration Committee decided now to disbale use of the rollback tool, that would in all probablilty be the last time any non-administrator ever saw it. For the good of the project, this really, really isn't a good idea – Gurch 01:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Marlith

The implementation of rollback hit us without anyone knowing about it. I also agree with Gurch on thsi topic. Just as we finished the initial voting we went forth to a short period of discussion about the definition of consensus. Hours later, we discover that it was implemented quite quietly. The problem that caused so much controversy is the vague definition of consensus. Could it be the dictionary definition? Does it mean that one side has more logical and convinicing arguements like this? This controversy has escalated to the point where only the ArbCom can decide. Personally, I believe that RfR should be tweaked into an RfA like process instead of the RFPP like process we have now to prevent users from misusing the tool. Or if we have intelligent discussion the community can come to an agreement. Although rollback allows users to be bitey, I would like to remember that rollback can be taken away from disruptive users and it is also a very good anti vandalisim tool. Also I have seen much bad faith in the arguments against rollback, the problems lie with the users, not with the proposals or everyone who has rollback. Thank you. Marlith ^T/C 01:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A modest proposal by Durova

This just isn't worth the fuss. I respectfully request that the developer who implemented this un-implement it temporarily while the community decides whether/what type of implementation is appropriate, that ArbCom dismiss this case, and that people put their energies into something useful. Durova^Charge! 02:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Halo

I agree with Carcharoth - it was largely a breakdown of communication between the en-Wiki process and the developers. I, for one, firmly believe there wasn't consensus for this change.

In future, there needs to be a better way to decide whether a policy has passed or not, avoiding replying on developer discretion wherever possible simply to make life easier for everyone - the suggestion by Jimbo Wales on Wikipedia:AN#Arbcom to let the ArbCom have the final decision on these sorts of polls and communicate this to developers seems like the best idea going forward. A way of preventing ambiguity over poll results and consensus should be the most important thing to come out of this process - if nothing else than to prevent discouraging developers from making active changes to Wikipedia lest they be controversial, and to prevent future controversial decisions.

However, I can't help but think Ryan Postlethwaite, the original author of WP:RFR, did his very best to muddy the waters and tried to cause as much confusion as possible to push through the policy by implying that there was consensus on Bugzilla bug 12534 while not showing his conflict of interest (or that his opinions on consensus differ from many) and advertising on MediaWiki:watchlist-details prematurely.

Rolling out WP:RFR at the first possible time irrespective of the fact that the policy wasn't ready causing confusion with policy made up on the spot was a bad idea. I believe that these sorts of actions should be strongly discouraged in future, and changes such as this should be done in a more considered manner - even if something is technically possible and enabled that doesn't mean it should be rushed into. -Halo (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick

I welcome and strongly support the comments made by Gurch. I would also ask that the Arbitration Committee clarify their powers in relation to technical features. Whilst not strictly relevant, I note that some Arbitrators have been appointed following the recent elections with a level of support comparable to the level of support for the Rollback proposal (both in terms of votes and in terms of percentages). Arbitrators with such a level of support enjoy a clear mandate, and I believe this should also be the case with the Rollback proposal, as such, I cannot do anything but ask the Arbitration Committee to reject the full case, permit users to be given the Rollback permission and direct the community to create suitable policy to govern the process as it has been implemented. Nick (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MBK004

I received rollback through the process on 10 January. I echo the concerns of Gurch, and urge that a consensus be determined between the administrators granting rollback as suggested by Nick. Regardless, of what is decided, my main concern is what is to happen to the editors who have received rollback if the process is halted. I agree that the process is flawed, and have no doubts that many disagree with how the process was implemented in the first place. I commend the admins who have tried to work in good faith to implement a process to effectively judge if an editor should be given this tool. If the decision is made to stop this process of granting rollback to non-administrators, I would advocate that the editors who already have it (approximately 350+), be allowed to keep the tool, with the knowledge that their actions would be closely monitored, in order to judge if the concerns of the community in the aforementioned polls to determine community consensus have merit or not. This is because the unannounced (to those who have not kept up with the recent events following this process) removal of the tool to the 350+ users with it screams of assuming bad faith in the editors who have rollback. - -MBK₀₀₄ 02:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alexfusco5

I was an original opposer of this proposal before it was implemented. Now that I have seen how he process is operating my concerns have been addressed. Many of the oppose votes (my included) opposed because of unneeded bureaucracy or dislike of the process. I believe that a new policy needs to be made behind the new feature to assure that the policy has consensus. As was seen by the poll many people supported the idea but opposed the way it worked (i.e. should be carried out bureaucrats, twinkle does the same thing etc.). The solution would probably be to draft a new rollback policy that has consensus from the community (unless the policy was supposed to be implemented by majority) Alexfusco⁵ 02:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Mercury

Everything Gurch said above.

Statement by Sean William

This situation was handled poorly on every level. Once the developers activated the feature, the process immediately began - causing utter chaos. I tried to protect the page so that some discussion could be had, but it was only protected for about 40 minutes when John Reaves unprotected it as "not needed". I feel that it absolutely was needed, and still is. The parties list could be narrowed down easily to a few key players; Ned Scott already tried to do it in a sandbox of his (User:Ned Scott/sandbox4, old revision). Sean William @ 02:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Acalamari

I also agree with what Gurch said. As one of the most frequent participants at requests for rollback, I can say that everything has been going fine there, and problems, if/when they have arisen at the place, have been discussed and sorted out. I don't see any reason to close the process down, and I don't see what an arbitration case will achieve apart from waste a load of time for many people. Acalamari 02:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cobi

I have to echo Gurch, Nick, and MBK004 as well. Furthermore, ClueBot has seen a major performance boost since it was granted rollback. Regardless of the outcome of this request for arbitration, my main concern is those who have received rollback. Especially the anti-vandal bots, because all rollback is for the bots is a more efficient way to do the exact same thing that they do already. I have not seen any misuse of rollback since it has been granted, and to remove it would go clearly against our fundamental principle about assuming good faith. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 02:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ashley Y

From this case I hope to see an improvement of the process by which technical changes are made to the site. I note, for instance, that WP:PWD "passed" by 51 to 22, smaller numbers and proportionally less discussion no doubt due to not being linked on watchlists, yet was not implemented.

People get upset not because things don't happen to go their way, but when they feel the generally agreed rules and customs of the site are not being applied fairly. Upsetting people tends to damage the encyclopedia, but a clear process can mitigate that. —Ashley Y 02:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Ashley Y

Regarding WP:PWD, it was not implemented due to lack of discussion. The rollback proposal, on the other hand has had tons of it. Majorly (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lawrence Cohen

Oh, enough already: Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Vote. Lawrence Cohen 03:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update Please accept this case. An extreme minority has taken to supercede consensus now even on the vote, and have edit warred it out of Wikipedia, primarily administrators. Take this case, please. Please review: this and reconsider. This situation is hopeless, if some ultra minority of admins is going to drive an edit war to even take away the community's voice to decide such things like this, and kill an in-process vote that Jimbo called for. Lawrence Cohen 14:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

I’m not sure really what to say about this, we had what many could consider an RfC on the subject, a proposal and then a vote on the proposal which two thirds of the community said they wanted. What was my role in this? Well, I created the proposal which was discussed, then I created a final proposal which was put to a community vote. After around 450 people had voted on this, someone closed the poll citing discussion (I had nothing to do with the closure of the poll, I unwatchlisted it soon after it was created and I think it was closed by someone who opposed the proposal). A couple of days later, Corvus cornix cited a bug request that had been put forward by an uninvolved party (Note: This was visible to all parties on the talk page of the poll) and I simply responded on the bug, citing that I personally thought there was consensus but asked the developers to take a look at the poll). I had previously created Wikipedia:Requests for rollback and userfied it just in case it was implemented. I was as shocked as anyone when I saw it had been moved out of my userspace and the first request was already up. I think it would have been better for us to have had a few days (at least) warning before implementation so we could have got our policy and procedures up to scratch to stop any resulting mess happening, but this didn’t happen. I hindsight, I think everyones done a fantastic job developing this into a non bureaucratic procedure as we’ve worked in real time to sort out some real problems we had when it first started last night. As with all procedures here, they need time to develop, and I really can’t see how there’ve been any major problems with it so far. This was in no way ideal, we should have had warning, but we’ve made the best of a bad situation, and what the majority of the community wanted. Over the next few weeks I expect us to develop further and unless there’s problems (which no-one has yet been able to cite), I can’t see any real need to change things. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr.Z-man

I too agree with what Gurch says. At this point, most of the drama seems to just be for the sake of drama. Instead of continuing to argue about whether there was a consensus that the poll had a consensus, we should evaluate what has already been done. Is rollback being misused by non-admins on a significant scale (or at all)? Is the lack of a fully agreed upon system actually causing problems (other than people complaining about the lack of a process)? I've been mostly avoiding the discussion on the admins' noticeboard, but have instead been focusing on the discussion and process at WP:RFR and WT:RFR. For all the shouting and panicking elsewhere about how not having a pre-existing policy would be and is a disaster, it seems to be running fairly smoothly. There have been bumps, but for a totally new system, that is to be expected and work at the RFR talk page based on the experiences of people taking part in and observing the actual process is producing helpful results and minimal drama. Would having a fully agreed upon process before this was implemented have helped? Probably. Is it necessary? No. For one, except for important content policies, rules are supposed to be descriptive. How do we describe something that doesn't exist? Was is a total disaster? No, even without rules, people used (*gasp*) common sense and started to form rules based on how things were working. Even if we created rules before it started, unless we got really lucky, we probably would have ended up rewriting most of them once the process started. I'm reminded of when patrolled edits for Special:Newpages was activated (not quite as significant a change, but still quite noticeable). There was minimal on-wiki discussion beforehand, no RFC, no proposal, no straw poll, just a short discussion on the Village Pump. When it was turned on, I drafted up a quick set of rules based on my thoughts and some previous discussion (both public and off-wiki), people agreed with most, asked questions and commented on the talk page, and after a few bumps at the start (some due to it being misconfigured) it proceeded with minimal drama. Even without rules written beforehand and pages of discussion, it went quite well. I imagine that given a few days to iron out some issues, this will go well also. Mr.Z-man 03:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Justin

I want to emphasize a major point here. There are mixed opinions about whether or not WP:RFR is working, and those above me have commented on the various good and bad points. That being said, the real question here is not whether the tool is effective, or if the feature is a good or bad, but whether or not the implementation was made with consensus. I strongly disagree with User:Cobi that removing this tool is a violation of WP:AGF, if it's found that enabling the feature was without consensus in the first place. At this juncture, I believe full protecting WP:RFR and allowing a true consensus to form is the appropriate course of action. I see no reason to remove access to the tool, for those already granted access, unless the community decides to remove it entirely from non-admins (which I sincerely doubt will happen). As an aside, while I did vote in Lawrence Cohen's poll above, I don't think a "straight poll" is going to be any less contentious than the present situation. Justin ^chat 03:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Apparently a suggestion by the board chair, was enough for involved admins to make a final decision. This rather contentious debate exemplifies everything that is wrong with Wikipedia, and ArbCom's refusal illustrates why it won't get fixed. Justin ^chat 02:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:TenOfAllTrades

The poll has a number of troubling aspects. Most have been enumerated above, so I will sketch them only briefly here.

The poll was open for a very short period of time; I count less than nine days from first to last vote.
The proposal on which people were voting changed substantially over the course of the voting period: [142].
Even if 67% is taken to be a consensus that non-admin rollback ought to be made available, there appear to be wildly disparate opinions on when and to whom rollback should be granted.

For comparison, I remind the Committee of the last major policy that depended on a vote to assess consensus: the three-revert rule. In that case there was as widely publicized poll, a clear question, and a full two weeks of voting: Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement. The 3RR was passed with the support of 85% of the participants in the vote.

Obviously the cat is out of the bag. The configuration that allows admins to grant and revoke rollback has gone live. There's no point to antagonizing the developers by asking them to pull the plug; it's not their fault that we've done a poor job of keeping our house in order. Indeed, I suspect that it will be beneficial to the project to have more (responsible) people with access to rollback. What might be a good idea – and what is a matter that I would very much like to see the Committee consider – is a temporary injunction.

I strongly urge the ArbCom to declare a moratorium on granting rollback bits until the enwiki community can develop something like a stable policy on when and to whom rollback is granted. In the last days, I've seen a great deal of argument and very little agreement on a number of issues.

Should rollback be granted via private email requests, or only through a public process page?
How long should the community be allowed to consider or comment on a public request? (Times from fifteen minutes to twenty-four hours have been proposed; rollback requests have been granted within four minutes of their appearance on WP:RFR.)
Who decides if an editor should have rollback? I've seen one admin refuse a request, only to be immediately overruled by another without any comment or discussion.
How is rollback withdrawn?
How are requests logged? Should only successful/unsuccessful requests be recorded? If private requests are permitted, should they be logged to prevent 'admin shopping'?

Right now the de facto policy is being decided not through consensus but by whichever admins decide to deliberate for the shortest amount of time and act with the least prior discussion. Presented with a fait accompli, there is a natural reluctance on the part of dissenting editors to risk the perception of wheel warring. This is not a good way to develop policy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Husond

I was very surprised to witness the blitzkrieg implementation of the non-admin rollback proposal. I'm really not convinced that there was a consensus for this change in the first place (it was way too borderline, and one should bear in mind that the support camp naturally attracted many users who, instead of pondering the pros and cons, simply supported because of their own benefit of getting the rollback tool). Anyway, even if we are to determine the outcome as consensual, I think that the amount of opposition should at least justify a slow and very well discussed implementation of non-admin rollback. Which just didn't happen. It was a disappointing process and bad omen for further proposals. Húsönd 04:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KnowledgeOfSelf

~~While ArbCom does not make policy, and this RfAb is out of the realm of what ArbCom normally handles, I do believe this is a special case that requires a firm adjudicature from some type of authority.~~ It is very unlikely that true consensus could be reached on this issue. ~~without a firm conclusion from such an entity as ArbCom.~~ With that being said, the issue here is not Special:Userrights, it is not the request page either. The issue is the blatant disregard of established practice and community understanding and application of consensus.

Policy or guideline pages should never be implemented in such a scant time period. The fact that a dev enabled this feature does not mean that it was accepted by the community. When I first became aware that requests for rollback were being given I stated, "This sets a substandard precedent, and completely undermines established practice. Consensus is not counting the votes, it is not 2-1, and it is not this."

The real grievance here is the disregard shown to community consensus. A prime example is the issuing of rollback to anti-vandal bots, based on this discussion which lasted just a couple days. Consensus can change, but not in 2 days or 2 weeks for a feature that can cause a ripple effect of this magnitude. ~~I urge ArbCom to accept this case, and be a facilitator of calmness and reason to this very serious issue.~~ KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck parts of my statement, as they really do not apply anymore. For the most part the stricken comments have already been decided/handled. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:B

This is silly. Around 300 people have requested rollback in the time since it went live. Presumably they like the idea of it. 2/3 of the community approved the policy in this form. Of the 1/3 that didn't like it, many of the objections were either flat out wrong (e.g. worrying about admins taking rollback away from each other) or were objections that would also apply to tools like WP:TWINKLE (in other words, no new problems). If someone has a better implementation than the current system, then propose it, but there is nothing good that can come from arbcom reviewing this. --B (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Mbisanz

Well it seems that most if not all of the points of this discussion have been covered. The one thing I'd like to add, is that I personally disagree with the concept of developers judging consensus of userights issues. Meta says "This position [Steward] was created to dissociate rights management from software development [Developer]." While developers must, by nature, flick the switch, a steward or at least a crat should have been the judge of consensus to notify the developers. Thats not to say that any users here acted in bad faith or improperly (or even that the decision to turn it on was wrong), just that in order to avoid the possible appearance of impropriety on anyone's part, a steward or a crat should have made the call publically on the vote (like an RfA or AfD) and then notified the developers, however that is normally done. MBisanz ^talk 06:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also note that while all parties who contributed to the original discussion are listed as parties, this RfArb has only been mentioned on AN/I and the 2 Rollback related pages. If accepted I'd strongly urge a bot-notification of everyone who signed the discussion/vote page. MBisanz ^talk 16:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EconomicsGuy

I understand that this was initiated based on Jimbo's comments about this so no blame to the initiator but Jimbo is way off here. We don't need ArbCom or even Jimbo for that matter to figure this out. What we need is for everyone to stop seeing ghosts and get back to writing the encyclopedia. It's rollback - it's not delete or block. This love of process is a gigantic waste of time and needs to end now. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Okay I'm getting more worried now. Given how this is going and the fact that the only thing we can agree on is an image of a white cat on the polling page I think we may have to ask ArbCom to act as mediators. Not policy makers, but mediators because clearly we are incapable of doing this ourselves. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Also, may I just point out to Flonight who accepted this that the current list of involved parties per this request includes some 450 people not counting those who have become involved since? I think the best solution here would be for a group of arbitrators to act as neutral mediators. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Apparently pointless now that there is a ban of at least 3 months on voting about this. I don't know where that was decided but apparently it was. So much for transparency. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ned Scott

This might sound odd coming from me, since about 24 hours ago I was drafting a proposal for a case, but I'm not sure about taking this to arbcom anymore. Maybe yes, maybe no, but I've been thinking a lot about this in the last day.

It's not a big deal in that it's not life or death, but people need to stop being mean to people who were upset by this. Same goes the other way around, when it applies. It's not ok for people to label such editors as being disruptive, because they have a concern, because they want to talk about it. We should avoid needless drama, but that does not mean rejecting anything that might generate some drama as a byproduct.

The situation should have been dealt with better. We should have waited before promoting users. It didn't happen, and for what it's worth, the world did not explode. Still, we need a way of stopping such stampedes in the future. A lot of people thought it was ok to just jump right on in, and there was no way for someone to put it on hold without being brushed off as being "disruptive".

Still, the way everyone responded, on both sides, was somewhat.. expected/ reasonable, consideration the situations, and how people normally react to such situations (at least for Wikipedia). But I'm still sorry this turned out to be somewhat of a mess. I'm sorry I got mad and that other people got mad. I'm glad that rollback granting itself have gone fairly smoothly despite all this. I feel bad for some of the things I said and did, and I feel bad that situations like this can put some users at odds with other users. I feel bad that this seems unfair to everyone involved in many ways (though there are certain things that could have easily improved the situation).

I find myself agreeing with both Doc glasgow and Ryan Postlethwaite in a lot of what they say on this page. And a lot of other users too. I don't know, and it's almost 5 am and I'm tired. I don't know if I should just walk away from this whole issue, or try to help us improve things for the next time we have a similar issue. I don't even know if I would be of any help, but I'd like to be of some help if I can.

I like just about all of you on this project. I really like our project and I really like working with everyone. Valid concerns or not, for when I was a bonehead, I hope people can forgive me, and I hope I can remember to do the same for others. -- Ned Scott 12:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by Ned Scott

Yesterday when I posted my view I went directly to the request for arb page, fell asleep, woke back up, finished what I was writing, and went back to sleep. It's now been another 15 hours since then, and I'm still trying to fully catch up with everything that has happened in the last 40 hours.

I wish there was a way to be mad-at/address something without having it become a big commotion, but that's just kind of the nature of Wikipedia. In all honesty, I can't find it in me to be really upset about this anymore. It's not that I should or shouldn't be, but just.. I have a lot of stuff to do, both in real life and on wiki.

The most embarrassing part of this is my own misconception on the rollback feature. I had played a hand in this issue getting all hyped up, and I made an extreme rookie mistake. Had I understood rollback correctly, I would have actually supported it. That's not to say that I wouldn't have had any objections to the resulting situation, but.. lets just say I want to crawl into a little hole. When I realized that my main concern wasn't even related, I blanked my arbcom draft, cursing my apparent addiction to Wikipedia, which had prevented me from watching many awesome giant robot fights that I had planned to view on that day. Sure, I had only myself to blame, but the nature of these things, and how we normally deal with them on Wikipedia puts a lot of us at a disadvantage (in comparison to real-life situations/disputes).

When I first opposed the proposal I figured that it would still pass, and that if it really was a bad idea that we'd find out, and would be able to deal with it at that time. I understand that this has made a second issue, unrelated to the feature itself, but even about that I can't say that I'm that concerned. I think we'll be able to handle it, but it's hard, by the very nature of Wikipedia, to do so in a way that doesn't put us at ends with each other.

We should be more worried about that than the disputes themselves.

We need to figure out how to prevent misconceptions, ways to aid proper perspective, and ways to do this when we're dealing with large groups of people making the decision, using a text based method of communication, where we can shoot first and ask questions later, and where our instincts often betray us. Wikipedia's community is at a sort of critical mass (for a lack of better words), and this is evidence of that. -- Ned Scott 03:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hiding

There are issues here that need to be examined. WP:CONSENSUS is a fundamental policy and should not be disregarded. When a consensus is disputed that dispute should be settled through dispute resolution, not ignoring the dispute. More than that, there is also a strong statement of principle by Jimmy that Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We need to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the community, as ultimately determined by me, in full consultation with the community consensus. Did we have a full consultation? Were all issues aired properly? Was dispute resolution followed? Was WP:CONSENSUS, the most fundamental resolution policy, followed? Hiding T 12:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Further. I just also want to say this. I asked Ryan how to contact the devs and at no point did he mention the bug page. I wanted to point out that whilst there may be consensus that there should be some form of rollback granting, it may be that the current proposal was not the best implementation and that the community needed time to work out the best method. The current method stinks of instruction creep, and it may be that the community could have decided that no granting of the ability to amend user rights needed to be granted to admins. We may have decided that blocking could have been the method to deal with abuses of rollback and that rollback could have been granted to all accounts or to accounts with x amount of edits. There really has been a huge swathe of discussion curtailed here and behaviour does need to be examined at some level. I'm not suggesting Ryan deliberately misled me, but I think the fact that he didn't mention it to me perhaps undercuts his statement somewhat and thus part of the reason for Sam's decline to hear this. If it was an honest oversight, fair enough, but it just feels like enough people were asking for more discussion, for proponents to slow down. It felt like proponents were dismissing that as attempts to kill the issue by filibustering, something that breaches AGF if you ask me. It felt like contrasting opinions were being disregarded by those who wished this to be implemented. Hiding T 18:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per statement to that effect from Anthere. Hiding T 22:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Slakr

This is my first arb post ever, so please excuse me if it's too lengthy/not addressing the right things/etc, as I normally avoid these kinds of things. :P

I think there are several issues in play here:

This is a permanent change — I think the pivotal issue here is the fact that we're deciding on something that is going to be a de facto permanent change, but it's been treated with wild disrespect and incorrect protocol for a serious policy change. Sure, we can say that “oh, we can just open another vote to have it removed,” but practically-speaking, even if there was wide abuse, there won't be a snowball's chance in hell of prying +rollbacker from the public's cold, dead hands.

+rollbacker isn't and won't be easy to remove in cases of abuse — One of the original arguments for adding it in the first place was that it would be easy to remove if it were to be abused. We've already seen that, in only the first few days of the ability being added and granted, people have allegedly abused it. But, when it comes to removing said permission, there tends to be strong favor toward readding it quickly. Whether that will be the case in the future is uncertain, but this doesn't particularly bode well for occurring within only a couple of days of the permission being live. But, because it's a logged permissions change, it it certain to draw the wrath of those involved should they perceive injustice in any form; and, it goes without saying that any negative permissions entries, including +rollbacker, will be a scarlet letter in RfA and other issues of character.

There have been very bizarre, confusing, atypical, and overall strange occurrences/incidents during the discussion and !voting processes — particularly:
- Blanking votes here and here is troubling. People who would otherwise think they have casted their vote may not know it/they got wiped away until it's too late. This is extremely troubling, and I don't believe that User:Random832 meant anything by it, but in any vote where that happens, I believe that the poll should immediately closed, the issue dropped, and then reopened a couple weeks later once everyone is back on the same page.
- Non-neutral images in the header as of this revision is also troubling. There are reasons there aren't pictures strewn about polling booths, and psychological priming has a lot to do with it. Also, notice the caption: “Do you already has rollback?” Which, in my opinion, directly prompts action resembling rally-like behavior.
- Tacking on bots to a discussion about users and the subsequent hard-closing discussion after only 3 days of being active with atypical reasoning “I'm closing this, because it's already been acted on” ??? I could be wrong, but someone being BOLD in giving bots +rollbacker does not constitute consensus— especially after only 3 days of discussion (presumably because someone assumed it was a vote, which, in that particular case should be highly frowned upon because it involves technical issues that actually do need discussion).
- A developer ticket being opened unilaterally before consensus was established to enable non-admin rollback. Judging by precedent of Wikipedia:Per-article blocking, if even 84% percent !vote support isn't accepted as clear consensus, then a figure of, around 68% definitely shouldn't be either.
- During the discussion and straw poll, this and prior revisions had unsourced, OR, opinionated rebuttals to opposition placed well before the poll itself in a highly visible location. As a result, it is likely that people who came to the discussion with opposition were dissuaded from voicing and/or agreeing with fellow opposers, while those who arrived to support were merely reinforced in their support. Granted, this is speculation on my part, but it wouldn't be fair to do the same thing in a polling booth during an election, so I wouldn't expect it to be done here.
- Inadvertent canvassing using Template:Watchlist — I say inadvertent, because posting a watchlist message to registered users is an issue of conflict of interest, much like posting a rally to a non-notable forum up for deletion is also a conflict of interest. My reasoning here is that there is a fundamental net gain from any editor supporting the ability to receive +rollback who isn't an admin already. As a result, people who wouldn't even be interested in policy changes in the first place or even know what rollback is are suddenly called to action, thereby artificially inflating the vote count, stimulating a false dichotomy, and reaffirming why polls are evil.

In my opinion, I do not believe that any resultant vote will be fully reflective of either consensus or numbers due to the various misconducts in the process itself. I understand that I opposed the change in the first place, but I must affirm that despite that opposition, I'm not here to try to fight against consensus or anything, as might be inferred. Anyone who knows/investigates my history will know I'll always gladly defer to consensus, but in this case, I do not believe that we will have an accurate gauge of consensus for the time being.

I'm not blaming anyone, as they seem to be done in good faith and/or as humor and/or to alleviate confusion; but, in any election/poll, controlling for bias is critical, and when the result might not reflect the true state of things, we need to decide if a recount is necessary, and what preventative measures need to be taken to assure that all procedural elements are lucid.

My opinion? I believe the entire thing should be scrapped'n'archived, waitlisted for about a month, then re-opened for discussion/vote/whatever— only in the interests of letting the dust and confusion settle so that everyone is back on the same page. From there, if a vote, discussion, or whatever is desired, then it should be done and a neutral, uninvolved group should decide what the consensus actually is; because, right now, this whole thing has turned into a zoo— and I'm not using the metaphor lightly. --slakr^\ talk / 14:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GlassCobra

Like Slakr above me, I have been involved with ArbCom only marginally before now; please forgive me if I’m off-topic. However, I feel too strongly about this to sit on the sidelines.

I am disappointed. So far, ~~two~~ three of our newly elected arbs have decided to reject this case to send it back to the community, when clearly the community is incapable of deciding on its own in this matter; as EconomicsGuy has said, the only thing we can seem to agree on is having a picture of a cat on the vote page, as the vote itself has been blanked several times, and now protected before I could vote. The Arbitration Committee is not suited to the job of deciding on whether policy changes should be implemented; however, in this case, the policy change was implemented without consensus from the community. Even Jimbo seems to want to pawn this off onto someone else. I confess being a little disappointed in Doc glasgow, whose previous statement, before he struck it out, seemed to be along the same lines as my thoughts here. This is not something to merely roll over and take.

To be blunt: this is unacceptable. As much respect as I have for Ryan Postlethwaite, he seems to have some serious misguidings about what exactly consensus is. Consensus is not about straight numbers, not about who gets the most votes, and it certainly is not "who shouts the loudest." This is the premise by which he has declared victory, so to speak, and he is wrong. Ned Scott made some good points in his statement a few above mine; not only were the self-proclaimed "winners" of the rollback proposal being arrogant and rude, they were completely and utterly dismissive of anyone attempting to voice opposition, even as the feature was being implemented; see B’s post above as an example. From the very beginning, this proposal has had problems. As we all know, this is not the first time that non-admin rollback has been discussed. It was clear from the previous discussion that this was not something that could be simply voted on, and especially not in the six days that the proposal went before the proponents declared victory. As some will know, there’s been quite an uproar on the mailing list. So not only was there no consensus for this feature, there was absolutely no discussion on how it should be managed. I urge everyone to go and look at WT:RFR right now and witness the chaos currently underway; everyone voicing their opinions as to how people should be granted rollback, and we have indeed seen the beginnings of some wheel warring over permissions, as predicted. In the meantime, while the bickering continues, editors are being granted this tool left and right, with unknown ramifications. Like TenOfAllTrades and Durova, I strongly urge the ArbCom to declare a moratorium on granting this privilege until the community can develop a stable policy on when and to whom rollback is granted.

I don’t really feel that this proposal is all that much of a good one. If people like Marlith feel that this should be more like an RfA, why not just send these candidates to RfA? These are obviously good, quality editors, otherwise we wouldn’t be granting them rollback (right?). Perhaps a large influx of candidates will help the RfA process to be less of a big deal, as it has become. God knows we can always use more admins to help out around here. To sum up: like Ned Scott, I respect all of you. Like I said on my RfA back in November, these conflicts are absolutely inherent and unavoidable when such a large number of people come from so many different backgrounds to work on something together. I hope we can all work together to arrive at a solution that best serves the project. GlassCobra 15:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sm8900

Sorry, I don't have any knowledgable details about the very important issue of how the discussion was handled. However, I do agree with all editors above who express any misgivngs about acceptance of and implementation of rollback. who needs it? what does it add, and how does it benefit anyone? but anything with such deep implications for Wikipedia needs to be looked at very, very carefully. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Blue Tie

I don't believe I saw this vote and I cannot help but wonder why this is a big issue. Why do we need to have this tool? Why does it matter if we do have it? But, if the vote was not handled right and consensus not followed then it should be reversed. So in essence I am in agreement with SM8900--Blue Tie (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jossi

What da...? A poll? When? Where was it announced? Developer's implementation on the basis of a poll that ended 304 Support, 151 Opposed calling it consensus? Something is very wrong in Gotham city. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Injunction

I support the current Arbitrators who are opting to decline a case on this issue, I agree their involvement is premature. I think this is something the community ought to try working out first. However, judging by the discussion on AN/I and the absurd edit warring at Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback/Vote I would like to request an injunction from ArbCom to frame the proceedings.

My idea is an injunction defining where and for how long discussion ought to proceed. It's unusual, true, but it looks like most of the fighting is over the weight of past discussions and allow new discussion to proceed. So I would suggest defining a discussion period of at least one week, to be restricted to one page at or below Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback. Following this, an open poll to last at least two weeks, also located in the same area. I wouldn't suggest any further definition of the discussion or polling, merely state that at the end of that time ArbCom would issue a statement either recognizing a consensus (for or against) or reopening discussions. Also at that time, ArbCom can reevaluate the need for them to referee the discussions further.

I feel an injunction like this would go a long way to calming the current drama, and refocusing energies into something constructive. --InkSplotch (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tariqabjotu

Frivolous. -- tariqabjotu 20:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Grandmasterka

'Frivolous' doesn't begin to describe it. Grand master ka 08:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Decline, and (whether the current view is consensus or not) refer it back to community, to choose an approach to generate (or check) a consensus-based decision on the rollback facility. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline. FT2 speaks well here. ArbCom can explicitly ratify the community's consensus once that is established; we do so all the time implicitly every time we use a community policy in a case. But I'm not sure why we should, regardless of Jimbo's request; if the decision is a really bad decision, we're not going to be the only ones or the first ones to notice it, and the community's request to the Foundation would hopefully be rejected anyway; and if the decision is a good decision, ArbCom's imprimature is hardly going to make it a better decision (unless there's something odd I don't know about the Foundation's deliberation processes.) If the community likes the idea of ArbCom being some sort of conduit for the rare policy request to the Foundation, I suppose we could do that, but I'm not sure why it should be necessary. I do think the declaration of "consensus" to the developers bears examination, but that's about it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 08:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept to examine user conduct issues related to civility and prematurely declaring consensus in an important issue that effects the entire community. FloNight (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per FT2. In other circumstances a case based on misconduct through misrepresentation of consensus to a developer might have been worth taking but Ryan Postlethwaite's statement makes it clear that there was no misconduct on his part. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could accept this case for the sake of providing a foundation for similar potential cases in the future (the way of handeling it). I could reject this case on the basis that the 'process' is already in place and running somehow well, though not in a complete status; which is normal under all the circumstances presented in this case. I could recuse myself since, acting as a regular user, i had suggested here a page's full protection until the process is put in place so to avoid drama, edit warring as well as some other points i mentioned at the RFR's talk page. However, i will be reduced to comment only... I have to point out that the major concern here is not about the new feature itself but about the misunderstanding (good-faith mishandling would be probably the best term to describe the situation) of one of our core policies (i.e. WP:CONSENSUS). To settle this case, i would advise the community to revise the process of how consensus is established (in case it is possible in this case). Some say that the process is 'not' important. No, it is important, otherwise we won't need policies and guidelines, administrators and the ArbCom. There is a need to remind everyone (especially involved admins) that Wikipedia is not an anarchy. Which is not really important is bureaucracy. My personal opinion on the feature itself? None. As pointed out above by some of my fellow arbitrators; the ball is at your [community] camp. In other words, my only BIG concern here is how consensus is interpreted and implemented. I don't blame any user for being 'quick'/'bold' but i'd highly suggest that important decisions about new features/processes should take enough time to decide upon. One of the advantages of that would be saving time while preserving the smooth running of this project. Probably, a simple and quick consultation with the ArbCom, Jimbo and the developpers would have been the best option; not for them to set a standard or a policy but a cool advice on how to manage the process smoothly. But well, we are already here and hope everyone thinks about ways preventing drama before it occurs in the future. Thanks everyone. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. Though I agree with Flo that there is potential behavioural concerns to examine, I think the parties involved have learnt their lessons by now. I don't see it as beneficial to the community at large to accept a case on this now. James F. (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Howe (claimant to King of Mann)

Initiated by Kingofmann (talk) at 03:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

kingofmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Initiating Party)
Hu12 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Jmlk17 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Newguy34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Heraldic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wjhonson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

In an attempt to resolve this issue with user Newguy34 and having researched for several hours his edits as well as many others, based on the discussions of several editors on my biography's talk page at Talk:David_Howe_(claimant_to_King_of_Mann) with those attempting to edit to Wikipedia's policies, I do not feel that this issue is easily resolved and it does suggest that there is a group effort to edit to the negative with three of the parties involved as well as other anonymous editors not cited using various USENET groups as a base for orchestrating their efforts. See MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#Unreal_Royal citing user Wjhonson involvement. See Talk:David_Howe_(claimant_to_King_of_Mann)/Archive_2#Celebrity_Friends_and_Royal_Cousins illustrating user Hearldic's participation in a USENET group with a long list of libelous claims against me.

Statements by Kingofmann

I am David Howe, the subject of a Wikipedia Biography.

My initial dispute had to do with the inclusion of a business that I own, that has nothing to do with my notability, on a biography page about me. I requested to Admin Hu12 that he aid me with the removal on his talk page and I cited WP:Blp#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy as the reason why. I eventually deleted the material I felt violated my privacy and stated why on my talk page. User Newguy34 reverted it twice and that is when I requested page protection which was issued.

In response to what seemed like several editors of my biography page, namely Newguy34, Heraldic, Wjhonson and some anonymous users involvement in what seems to be an orchestrated effort to circumvent WP:BLP and present a negative point of view see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#Unreal_Royal, Admin Hu12 on his talk page as well as my biography's talk page stated, "The Media bias is evident in many of the sources, which are attributable and doesn't surprise me since its rooted in forms of Cultural biass. The subject of David Howe is no doubt a Political one to many, however lets keep these biases out of the article space." His request has had no effect.

There are numerous examples on the biography's talk page that show the well telegraphed intent of some editors. Just a few are as follows: December 27, 2007, editor Newguy34 was an advocate for the Wikipedia blacklisted site that has since be revised several times to appear less libelous. Talk:David_Howe_(claimant_to_King_of_Mann)/Archive_2#Celebrity_Friends_and_Royal_Cousins Despite the fact the site isn't a reliable third-party source, addressing another editor's objection to the site he stated, "Your bias appears clear, namely to advance Howe's claims. The author of the website is well respected in genealogy circles and has fully cited and referenced his "opinions."" In fact none of these things are true. The author of the site at the bottom of the first page describes himself, as of January 9, 2008, "an accountant with a keen amateur interest in history and genealogy."

Heraldic and Wjhonson advocating for including libelous blacklisted site see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#unrealroyal.com and then attempting to get it removed from the blacklist See MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#Unreal_Royal. Here it was also revealed that Wjhonson had conspired with the author of the blacklisted site to misuse Wikipedia.

Note: per arbitrator request, all statements made by Kingofmann have been merged into the one section heading for brevity. Per directions, this also included a statement made by this user using an confirmed alternate account. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second Statement by Kingofmann

With all due respect, I am I to understand correctly there is an expectation that I must personally hash this dispute out with each of the other parties involved first in order to try and remedy the problem when I have an urgent need for privacy and protection against a negatively slanted biography before I can bring it to the arbitration committee?

Is this the same expectation of others who are the subjects of a Wikipedia biography?

This process has already been an extreme drain on my time and resources. The editors that I have noted in my original statement share a negative view of me and they have not hidden this in their edits or discussion on my biographies talk page or other related talk pages. I feel that it is part of a larger agenda. I also feel that any extra steps required of me in this process and in this public forum are an invasion of my privacy and is an embarrassment.

Is it really necessary that I, the subject of a Wikipedia biography, be required to do anything more to gain some urgently needed protection from Wikipedia? I really hope that this is not the case.--Kingofmann (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingofmann (posted by Lazydown, see below)

Today, 1/11/08, User Carbonlifeform, started an articles for deletion page for this BLP Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Howe_(claimant_to_King_of_Mann) and then proceeded to nominate it for deletion. So, I don't know if that quite qualifies as having no involvement. Beyond that, I think his motion was very premature.

Most are recommending it for deletion based on the subject being WP:ONEEVENT or WP:NN. But, all pretenders to a throne as well as all Kings and Queens are notable for only one event and all other things are as a result of their station. HRH Prince Charles of Wales is notable for one thing. I can't imagine deleting his BLP. If this is the grounds for deleting this subjects BLP then it should be applied evenly across the board and not selectively to those lacking popularity and fame.--Lazydown (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been confirmed that Lazydown is a sock of User:Kingofmann. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement 3 from Kingofmann

The presumption above is that I want a Wikipedia page about my claim. I did not create the page and I would not miss it should it meet a speedy demise. I would, however, not have a problem with my biography here if two things could be achieved. First - A general respect for my privacy concerns. Second - An encyclopedic biography that states the five Ws free of extraneous and ill informed attempts to chip away at various aspects of my claim citing dubious sources. I don't feel that these are unreasonable expectations and seem to conform with Wikipedia's policies -- we want the same thing. The fact that a hand full of editors were not interested in improving my biography to meet Wikipedia's standards is why I brought the issue here.

Stepping beyond my privacy concerns and into the realm of the extraneous for just a moment. The editor above made a few statements as if they were fact and comprises the secondary reason for my request for arbitration. The particular statement he insist should be included in any mention of my claim "and the fact that he has no particular genealogical standing amongst the many descendants of the Stanley Kings of Mann.", is an opinion and not a neutral point of view. I have an excellent standing among my aunts and uncles and my first and second cousins, roughly thirty people total I can think of right now and all of whom are Stanley descendants. So I would be very interested to know what reliable source he plans to cite when making that claim.

I would also like to point out that the generally recognized head of the Stanley's is Edward Richard William Stanley, 19th Earl of Derby a descendant of Sir James Stanley the younger brother of my great great...grandmother Lady Jane Stanley and Thomas Stanley III the first of the Stanley Lords of Mann. The 19th Earls line inherited the peerage of Derby in 1736 on the death of the 10th Earl of Derby. The House of Lords in 1736 had to go back some 230 years in order to find a male heir with the surname Stanley to award the peerage to. This is just how narrow the Stanley line was. The title of Lord of Mann and the Island were passed to James Murray, 2nd Duke of Atholl a first cousin to the 10th Earl of Derby obviously in the female line. So this notion that there is a vast sea of descendants bearing the surname of Stanely or otherwise who might have a superior claim than I do is totally baseless and comes from one single and completely unreliable source that has recently been blacklisted by Wikipedia.

There were no facts involved in editor Choess statement regarding my standing among Stanley descendants.--Kingofmann (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Statement by Kingofmann, please read

I did not create this biography and it appears that it was started by the administrator Hu12. Although I do not have any issues with anything this editor has done. This editor for some time attempted to insure a neutral biography.

Now that I have taken a deep breath and a short break here and asked for some feedback from a few people who know me very well and are familiar with what is going on here I will proceed. That help is allowing me to remain calm and even provided me the ability to look at this more objectively. Though I will admit getting to this point has been a little difficult. I will try to provide a little better perspective for the administrators reviewing my case.

A friend shared with me today that the moment anyone sticks their head above the wall they become a target of criticism for some people. This is something I'm sure can be applied to any Royal or celebrity as any tabloid paper demonstrates. The problem I have had here is that my biography and the talk page attached are being used as a tabloid. I have to imagine that this isn't what Wikipeida is intended to be used for. Wikipedia provides me as the subject of the biography the right to remove statements that are negative or invade my privacy. This is established by Wikipedia as a policy. So it is difficult to accept that deleting or countering general misuse of the biography and negative points of view about me is something I shouldn't have done. My initial reaction when I first saw it was to delete the whole thing. I realized that it wouldn't have been a permanant solution however. Knowing it would stay up I only wanted to see some fair balance and a respect for my privacy which wasn't being given. These are the circumstances and reasons for my editing of the Wikipedia biography about me and I take full responsibility for that.

Wikipedia provides the following and these are the circumstances under which I participated in editing of the biography page about me.

WP:Article_subjects'_FAQ#The_information_in_your_article_about_me_is_wrong._How_can_I_get_it_fixed.3F

It is generally considered okay for you to edit your own article in certain circumstances:

If the article is clearly derogatory in tone and was written based on questionable sources or no sources.
If it contains private information you strongly don't want shared, particularly if you are not famous. (This might include, for example, your e-mail address, date of birth, religious affiliation or sexual orientation.)
If you believe it is libelous.

Not everyone is happy about my claim and many have turned their attention to this biography. Not used to this kind of attention and some of it being very negative has caused a fair amount of stress for my family and I. Many of the things that have been written about me have been baseless. The editor of a blacklisted attack site about me would have you believe I was previously married and fathered a child in 1982 at the ripe old age of 12. That is just plain stupid but that is the nature of the material these editors would see to have included in the biography about me.

Unsure how to react, I go back to the insight of a friend who reminded me that this type of thing is to be expected the moment you go from being a private person to becoming a minor celebrity. My learning curve has been very steep. I hope these things are helpful in providing a clearer picture of what my life has been like in recent weeks and that maybe the committee will extend some empathy my way. I thank you for your time and patience.--Kingofmann (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wjhonson

When a person has achieved that level of notability that a biography is acceptable, all known facts about the person have an equal chance of being represented. The person, short of pointing out libelous statements, has no special prerogative to exclude certain details. We do not allow this priviledge to Ann Coulter, we do not allow it to Jimmy Wales, we allow it to nobody. It is a red-herring argument that only issues *related* to notability are included. We include a biography based on notability, but once included, each statement does not need to pass notability to be included.

Contrary to the claim that I was involved in "...circumvent[ing] WP:BLP and present[ing] a negative point of view see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#Unreal_Royal...." I submit that all of my edits have quite plainly adhered to WP:BLP. The issue regarding what I perceive as an out-of-process blacklisting is a seperate issue to this article. That the http: //www.unrealroyal.com site was blacklisted as an "attack site", when IMHO it is a "criticism" site of a *public figure* as the King of Man is most clearly. If the King of Man were not himself a public figure, than pointed criticism might be a valid reason for blacklisting a site which criticizes a Wikipedian. The fact that he is a *public figure* puts him outside that purview and he is then fair-game just as surely as George Bush is himself. We do not blacklist sites critical of Bush, and if Bush became a Wikipedian we would not blacklist sites critical of Bush.

Contary to the assertion that "The author of the website is well respected in genealogy circles and has fully cited and referenced his "opinions."" In fact none of these things are true.", I submit that indeed the author is well-respected in genealogy circles, and his fair-and-even criticism of David Howe is fully cited and referenced.

Contary to the assertion that the site is "...libelous..." is my assertion that it in fact engages in well-reasoned and pointed criticism of a public figure.

Contrary to the assertion that "...Wjhonson had conspired with the author of the blacklisted site to misuse Wikipedia." is my assertion that outside Wikipedia, in particular on the soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup, I know the author of the website. My agreeing with his perception that his website was unfairly blacklisted, is not a conspiracy.

I want to add here, that should ArbCom take this case, I sincerely hope they will look at the issue of removing the http:// www.unrealroyal.com site from the blacklist. That is the main reason why I am here, in that, when I saw that message I smelled something bad. We use blacklist for repeated spam postings, not for reasoned, albeit pointed criticism sites. Criticism sites should never be blacklisted, criticism is the basis of a free society. I have already tried to get the site removed using the Blacklist removal request, but a certain admin is blocking the request. If ArbCom does not want to address this here, I'd like to know so I can open a new case for this one issue. Thank you. Wjhonson (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would submit that many of David's privacy concerns could be taken care of, by he himself, removing that information from his own website. If he does not want us to know the name of his wife, he should remove it from his site. I'm not sure how far this can go, as David has given interviews and been the subject of published reports which do note personal details. Secondly, since I also noticed this claim of a previous marriage in the Ancestry World Tree, I would submit that he should perhaps contact the submitter of *that* database in AWT, since the "blacklisted" site he aludes to is only repeating that claim from the above source, not creating it. Wjhonson (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newguy34

I am disappointed that this has reached the ArbCom, and am not sure quite where to start in this unfortunate episode.

First, either Mr. Howe is notable as an individual (for which information such as his primary business venture is relevant) or he is notable for only a single event (namely his claim) and the BLP should be merged with another article. I think a BLP of Mr. Howe is unwarranted. As it relates to WP guidelines, a person is generally notable if a) the person has received significant recognized awards or honors, or b) the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

Further, when a person is associated with only one event, such as an unsubstantiated claim to be related to ancient royalty, consideration should be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted.

And from BLP, if reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy, which is exactly the situation we are facing in this matter. I fail to see how Mr. Howe has achieved any notability other than through this singular claim, and the recent coverage of it. In spite of this, a single user Lazydown has made the majority of edits in support of Mr. Howe's claim, while several editors (including those involved in this arbitration matter) have been consistent in attempting to achieve a balance and neutrality to the article, Lazydown's (and now Howe's) protestations that we are somehow violating NPOV aside. The support for this assertion is contained on the article's talk page and the edit history, and is clear for anyone to read.

As to the information I seek to have included, I believe the inclusion of Mr. Howe's business is relevant information, which is entirely permissible and standard for a BLP. I cited the information from a verifiable, reliable source in accordance with WP policies. The fact that he owns a Glass Doctor franchise in Frederick is a matter of public record and comes from press releases penned by (or authorized by) him. I can not see how it now should be excluded (in its present form) from a biographical article [emphasis added] on claimed grounds of privacy, especially given that it was Mr. Howe who first put this information in the public domain. That Mr. Howe does not like the relevant information he has placed in the public domain being used in a BLP article about himself is insufficient support for its exclusion under privacy concerns.

I attempted to reach consensus with Mr. Howe on the issue (as evidenced on his talk page), but he refuses to discuss the matter further and instead has made a very serious threat of legal action against me (and possibly Wikipedia) see since-blanked entry here. A threat which I take very seriously, and for which I believe he should be admonished and/or otherwise blocked. He has not engaged in dispute resolution. These are indisputable facts, evidenced in various talk pages.

Mr. Howe's assertion that there are several editors involved in "an orchestrated effort to circumvent BLP and present a negative point of view" is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and represents libel. I have never met any of the other editors. My edits have been to retain NPOV after numerous attempts by Lazydown to edit the article in a light most advantageous to Mr. Howe and his claim. Lazydown's edits are typically accompanied by accusations that the editors involved in this arbitration are violating NPOV and other WP policies. I have posted that I believe we are involved in a content dispute. I have attempted to reach consensus on the issue with Lazydown, but he too refuses to discuss the matter. Instead, he posts accusations of a number of us on the talk pages of several administrators, namely Hu12. As such, I believe that Lazydown has not been exhibiting good faith, and am curious why Lazydown is not also a subject of this arbitration action given the inordinate number of edits he has made, and the generally uncivil nature of his numerous edits on talk pages.

I also take strong personal offense to Mr. Howe's implication that the edits of myself and others amount to a "well telegraphed intent" on our part. Again, I have never met the other editors in question, and there is no evidence or factual basis to support this latest assertion. Contrary to Mr. Howe's assertion, I was not an advocate for the now-blacklisted site, but rather sought to understand the objections of Lazydown in that matter. It is important to note that at the time of my posts on the matter, the website in question was not blacklisted. It is also important to note that the criticism of Mr. Howe on the website in question is fully cited and is fully referenced. The occupation of the website author is not relevant to his recognized expertise in the matters the website discusses. I, too, believe the blacklisting of the website is inappropriate and uncalled for.

In summary, I believe this is a very disturbing series of events, filled with red herring arguments, selective adherence to WP policies, inappropriate COI on the part of Howe, and an exercise of bad faith on the part of Howe and user Lazydown. I welcome the consideration of these matters by ArbCom, but as one who believes in the Wikipedia project, I am disappointed that it has come to this. Newguy34 (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the issue at hand, namely this RfAR, it is confusing to me and others as to why Mr. Howe has sought to remove his wife's full name (Pamela Marie Ahearn) from his BLP. I note that several press releases from his office have been written by a one "Marie Ahearn". I am not sure how the two may be related, but I hope this isn't one of the reasons he has cited privacy concerns over including this information in his BLP, as I believe it would represent a conflict of interest. Newguy34 (talk) 05:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Heraldic

Firstly, I should say that I have been on steep learning curve when it comes to the Wikipedia way of doing things. Hopefully I am not repeating any of my earlier procedural errors.

Given the nature of Mr Howe’s claims it is understandable that they would come under considerable scrutiny. I do not think that it is in Wikipedia’s interest to allow the Howe article to be perceived in any way as an endorsement of his claims. To that end I have attempted to provide a balance to the Howe article, clarifying certain broad statements or citing references that reflect that all is not as clear cut as Howe may wish.

With regard to the unrealroyal site; whilst the observations of the author may not meet Wikipedia guidelines (as I now understand), I do believe the factual content is worthy of note. It was for the latter reason I questioned its blacklisting. As for its reinstatement, you will see that I stated that if it was to remain blacklisted it should be for its content not because Wjhonson chose to query the blacklisting. I do not believe that simply disagreeing with an admin is a misuse of Wikipedia.

As part of this arbitration process, I hope that the administrators will also look into the relevant issue of sockpuppets. The dedication shown by users Theisles and Lazydown in the editing the article to reflect Howe’s case and the rigid application of Wiki procedures when it comes to the exclusion of any material that is critical of Howe has given rise to the suspicion that they are either Howe himself or a close associate. The most recent example can be found at Talk:David_Howe_(claimant_to_King_of_Mann)#The_Viscount_Howe_claim .Clarification of their status will go along way to calming things down.

For the record, I am not the owner, author or webmaster of the unrealroyal website. Nor have I had contact with any of the editors here to listed other than through Wikipedia public talk pages.--Heraldic 09:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved DrKiernan

The article should be deleted or redirected per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about people notable only for one event. DrKiernan (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingofmann's statement 3 admits that the heirs of the earlier Earl of Stanley were the later Earls of Stanley and the Atholls, i.e. the heirs general were the people who inherited the title not David Howe's ancestors. All reference works on the History of the Isle of Man ever published agree that the title of King of Mann was inherited by successive Earls of Stanley until the title was changed to Lord of Mann by one of these same gentlemen. In addition, I'm afraid that Acts of Parliament have greater legal authority than announcements in newspapers. Howe's claim is very obviously bogus. DrKiernan (talk) 08:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note these edits which show that User:Kingofmann has a history of writing articles about pretend countries and titles, and that two of his previous accounts, User:DukeofAntwerp and User:Drewdaily, both contributed to an AfD: [143][144][145][146][147][148] DrKiernan (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:CarbonLifeForm

This article seems to breach WP:NN, WP:BLP, WP:OWN, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V. It is pretentious nonsense. I have put it up for afd here. - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

other forms of mediation have not been tried. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by almost uninvolved Angusmclellan

When this article was mentioned at WP:BLPN, I had a look at it. My reaction was negative. The article was several sorts of WP:COATRACK: a collection of trivial press mentions, a grab-bag of badly sourced criticisms, a smattering of innuendo. Basically this is a WP:BLP1E where the event in question - the subject's bizarre claims - never got any analysis, and thus a non-event so far as an encyclopedia is concerned. There'd have been no need for the negative aspects to be so poorly referenced had anyone in fact bothered to rebut the claims. Whose fault is this? Don't care. How do we fix it? WP:AFD not WP:RFAR. If the arbcom are minded to consider whether WP:NPOV is more or less important that WP:BLP, I can save some time and trouble. Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable. What's could usefully be arbitrated here? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Choess

I feel that I should point out that this is not the first time Wikipedia has dealt with self-promotional claims to noble titles. Examining Talk:Earl of Stirling will show a very similar case, wherein an American claimed a British noble title largely by process of assertion. If I recall correctly, the substance of his argument was that according to some procedure in Scottish law, anyone who asserted themselves to be a peer *was* a peer until their claim was disproven, and that with the elimination of writs of summons for the hereditary peers, there was no authority that could disprove his claim, ergo he was the Earl of Stirling. This seems not dissimilar from Howe's claim, which seems to rest largely upon his having published a notice in the London Gazette without drawing explicit contradiction in that venue from the UK government. The difference in Wikipedia outcomes between the soi-disant Earl of Stirling's case and that of Mr. Howe seems to have been that the former rapidly descended to legal threats and was blocked, whereas the latter's case has been advanced by vigorous wikilawyering and invocation of BLP to suppress criticism of his claims.

While I realize that ArbCom will not impose content remedies, it seems to me that the most sensible solution is to redirect Mr. Howe's page to King of Mann and add a line or two noting his claims, the news coverage, and the fact that he has no particular genealogical standing amongst the many descendants of the Stanley Kings of Mann. I think that's in keeping with the overall historical impact of the claims, and it avoids the lengthy sparring over balance of coverage that's characterized the full-fledged article.

With regards to Mr. Howe's concerns, I think the fundamental problem is really, in a sense, that which we ordinarily label original research. He believes, in essence, that he has made new discoveries about the inheritance of the kingship of Mann which entitles him to it and would, naturally, like Wikipedia to reflect it. However, these discoveries are not yet widely accept it and, hence, subject to criticism, which naturally reflects upon him as well. I would respectfully submit that Wikipedia is here to document generally accepted facts and theories, and is a poor venue for trying to determine the truth or untruth of new hypotheses. The criticism he has encountered is the inevitable result of trying to inject a POV not yet widely endorsed into the encyclopedia, and the best way to deflect it is to avoid covering that POV in depth until it has won wider support. Choess (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kingofmann

I am David Howe the subject of a biography here on Wikipedia. I have another request open for arbitration. As a result of my request for Arbitration here a campaign of harassment has been started and libelous claims are being made against me at the link above and on the talk page of the biography. I don't know what the intent is and I do not care. I don't understand why I have to tolerate this abuse. What do I have to do here to get immediate intervention on my behalf.--Kingofmann (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that David Howe has been using multiple user IDs at Wikipedia, Kingofmann, Lazydown and Theisles to promote and edit articles covering his claims as per Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kingofmann. --Heraldic 18:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Kingofmann now not Howe?

At Howe's official website the following FAQ has been added to the News Page;

Featured FAQ:

Q) Was I talking to the real King David of Mann in the chat room / forum I was recently in?

A) No. Anyone can create an account name and claim to be someone they are not. There have been several incidents of impersonation of King David by persons both well intentioned, and not so well intentioned. King David does not participate in any chat room or forum discussions. King David's official information site as well as the official myspace page are his sole means of Internet communications.

Statement by Hu12

Significant here is the pro/con POV and COI editing that has occurred. However, as per Arbitrators' opinions thus far, a potential conflict between NPOV and BLP should be examined. Also to echo FT2’s statement below, many articles don't reach this level often, and despite that other dispute resolutions steps have not been tried sufficiently, this, perhaps, can serve to define or clarify apparent perceived conflicts or inconsistencies in privacy, NPOV and BLP. --Hu12 (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is extremly relevent discussions and other content being indiscrimantly deleted prior to this RFA?

Talk:David Howe (claimant to King of Mann)/Archive 2
Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_January_12#Image:Kingiomarms.jpg ^[149] note; the IFD was 2 to one in favor of the pending outcome of the Afd at the time of deletion.
Afd nomination^[150] of a protected article^[151] during a content dispute ?
[152]

--Hu12 (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other relevent stuff, mabey.

--Hu12 (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Thatcher

Some comments following a brief investigation:

Heraldic (talk · contribs) is virtually a single purpose account editing David Howe (claimant to King of Mann) (see wannabee kate's tool); although his earliest edits were adding a heraldry web site to a number of other articles. Only this diff seems like a true BLP problem in that, although it is a quote from a newspaper article, it was selected to make the subject look bad.

In fairness, my selection was from the same article that Howe had used selective quotes to make himself look good. The author's main thrust was anti monarchy rather than pro Howe.
My primary interest has always been heraldry & genealogy. However, this whole Howe issue has rather resulted in a "spike" of activity. --Heraldic (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newguy34 (talk · contribs) is another SPA [153] who has added personal info about the subject [154] although this information was apparently published in a local newspaper
The article is plagued by original research by multiple users, including Heraldic and Kingofmann ([155] [156] for example).
Users Kingofmann, Heraldic and Newguy34 are not really acclimated to Wikipedia yet, Kingofmann in particular repeatedly objecting to edits on the grounds that since Hu12 started the article, he should be consulted.
The advocacy here and in the article for the inclusion of the link to <unrealroyal.com> [157] is an abdication of the external links policy. Even if the site's owner is a respected amateur genealogist, the site is almost entirely original research that is not published in a reputable form as defined by the reliable source policy. (To the extent that the site quotes from secondary sources like newspaper articles, those sources could be quoted directly.) Whether the site constitutes an "attack" on the subject or not, it is definitely partisan, biased, and not a reliable source per policy. It also seems that, for a brief period of time, the web site had a page that exposed and criticized editors of Wikipedia [158]. While it is not really a candidate for the spam blacklist since it is unlikely to be linked from more than one or two related articles, it seems to be unsuitable as a link for BLP and reliable source reasons.
Other than the link to <unrealroyal.com>, there do not seem to be egregious BLP violations, rather, the disputes are over personal information about the subject that were revealed in other fora and whether they should be included here, and in exactly how to portray his claim to the kingship. I'm not sure there are any wider issues here needing clarification.
I suspect that further drama can be avoided by having a couple of editors experienced with BLPs add this to their watchlist and by pointing the subject to OTRS. I'm not convinced at this time that any editor's behavior (save the subject's apparent sockpuppetry) is bad enough to warrant sanction at this time.
On the other hand, this is the case to accept if you want something light and easy to balance the stürm und dräng of other cases...

Comment by uninvolved Gnan garra

After reviewing the SSP on Kingofmann I indefinitely blocked the two confirmed sockpuppets being Lazydown and Theisles. The two abandoned accounts which were unconfirmed were also indefinitely blocked.

Question for Arbitrators from Heraldic

Does this issue need to proceed any further? From David Howe's official web page we are to understand that user Kingofmann is not the real David Drew Howe, the subject of the article. If Kingofmann is an imposter does it not impact on the validity of his calling for arbitration? --Heraldic (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/1/0/1)

Abstain for now. Waiting to see other statements (if any) to see if there is genuinely a basis for us to look at this. If accepted, then to look at the conduct of all parties (without prior assumption) and BLP/NPOV/privacy crossover. Possible thoughts why we might:
1. There may be important BLP issues here that arise in many articles that don't reach request for arbitration, and which would help to clarify.
2. Unsure if DR has been tried sufficiently, but BLP disputes are rated "serious" more easily than many other kinds of dispute and if the community genuinely cannot solve, giving direction urgently rather than demanding every step of DR may be reasonable.
3. BLP is a policy which has great weight in "real life", and NPOV has great weight in articles; both are "non-negotiable" in their requirements. So a perceived conflict may need more clarification. BLP v. NPOV v. privacy is an area that merits experienced eyeballs.

For now though, waiting for (and would like to have presented) further statements, ideally including insight by other experienced users, to help identify if this issue actually needs arbcom to accept, or not. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accept. I think both sides of the dispute can better explain the issues involved in this venue than others. The potential conflict between NPOV and BLP needs to be addressed. FloNight (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. The issues arising here that FT2 discusses ought to be considered. --bainer (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per FloNight. Also, per FT2, probably this case would clarify in depth our commitment to the non-negotiable BLP policy. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain for now, with the suggestion that other arbitrators note Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kingofmann. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(To which I've linked in a previous checkuser on Theisles, and a couple of other relevant pages.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, change to Accept now; though some might consider sockpuppeting right here on this page to be an immediate banning offense. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. In response to a private query, I do not feel moved to recuse despite being an agent of the subject's opposing claimant to the stewardship of the Isle of Man. James F. (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would reject because I think the situation is less complex than it might at first appear. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain please? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appeals and requests for clarification

Place appeals and requests for clarification on matters related to past Arbitration cases in this section. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. Place new requests at the top.

Anyeverybody/Anynobody and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS

From the start it's important to understand that I am here to contribute, I can't boast WP:FA after WP:FA since the subjects I have the most knowledge about are controversial. As such they are difficult to edit into Featured shape. Nor is my edit count as high as our more prolific contributors, however as proof of my commitment I can point to over 250 free images created, enhanced or found and added to the project. (I'd guesstimate 85-90% are images I created or enhanced for the project, while the rest are simply Public Domain images found on government/military websites. I'll lowball my efforts and keep the number at 100 to make things easier for those not mathmatically inclined. 85% of 100 is 85. Many of them took more than a few hours of work and are used on several projects. (Essentially I'm also contributing to the Japanese, German, Hebrew, Vietnamese, Russian (in fact both of the two on this page are mine, the list goes on and includes five or six other languages. It also includes an image nominated for Featured status. I'm not trying to brag, but since people seem to think I'm only about trolling or gaming the system it's important to show that to be untrue. I wouldn't spend so much time helping out to turn around and troll someone while gaming the system.

The case itself was, I thought, going to be about the issue of people using Church of Scientology IPs and open proxies to edit Scientology related articles with a pretty clear view towards affecting the POV of said articles. I honestly thought that Bishonen bringing up the disagreement between Justanother and I was pretty unrelated to the case and that the arbcom would think the same thing. By the time it was clear that they didn't, I was being accused of harassment, thereby making any effort to show past, and more extensive, bad behavior on his part seem like confirmation of my harassment of him. It's very frustrating to have so many people assume bad faith on my part because a popular admin does.

For example Justanother recently cited an example of what he called bad faith on my part:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS/Workshop#Disclosure of report to WP:3RR regarding Justanother. The issue of my supposed harassment was recently brought up in the arbcom, then as now, nobody would give specifics about what was/was not harassment. Certainly reminding him that 3RR rules apply to everyone wouldn't be considered harassment, since it's true: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive55#User:Justanother reported by User:Anynobody (Result: No action, warned) If you read the thread itself it should be obvious that I simply wanted to warn him that as he had made the same mistake as the editor he was trying to get blocked. (Please note also that I created both the arbcom thread and the 3RR note in good faith, if I was acting in bad faith, why would I turn around and tell the arbcom about it? I also didn't ask for or insist on a block at any time.)

So I'm asking for the arbcom to either let me explain/address whatever evidence they decided warranted an assumption of bad faith on my part, or failing that allow me to present evidence of how any harassment I could have inflicted is minimized by similar behavior which he initiated first and with other editors (who no longer edit anymore). Why am I bringing this up now? Because Justanother has begun using this case to leverage his position on articles like: Neutral reportage where he is currently arguing against including sourced material about a person who's article was recently deleted but is also mentioned in said article, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive12#User:Anyeverybody (AKA User:Anynobody) and Barbara Schwarz by accusing me of editing the wrong part of neutral reportage before other parts are added as the reason why it's inappropriate to talk about the Salt Lake Tribune's use of Neutral reportage to defeat Barbara Schwarz's defamation suit. He's also been posting on my talk page, which begs the question, if I harassed him, why come back for more?

I think the findings re him and I in the case should be dropped, and any future issues be dealt with through dispute resolution which was essentially skipped before. Going to arbcom for editor disputes in the context of an entirely separate issue seems to be pretty rare, except in this case. (Heck, we skipped Wikipedia:Requests for mediation entirely.) Anynobody 07:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Justanother (JustaHulk)

Leaving the issue of the appropriateness of Anyeverybody's (Anynobody or AN) attacks on me here and sticking strictly to the facts, I do want to respond to a couple of AN's misrepresentations here.

Re: "For example Justanother recently cited an example of what he called bad faith on my part:" That is a complete misread of my remark at WP:AE#Friendly reminder requested. The bad faith I was referring to was this:
"AN constantly claims that he does not understand the ruling but when it is clearly explained to him, he ignores the explanation and grossly violates it by trotting out his collections of old, out-of-context diffs regarding me."
That is bad faith. The other bit in that remark was clearly an answer to AN's previous question:
"Could you please provide a diff from the arbcom where I pulled "this crap" and was told why what I did was like/unlike this? (Seriously, I'm not holding a grudge I just can't remember doing anything like what I've identified as harassment. Would you please just show where/when I did the same thing?) Anynobody 06:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)"
AN accuses me of "using this case to leverage his position on articles like: Neutral reportage". That is a lie - I never tried to use the harassment restriction on AN to my own advantage and, in fact, went out of my way to not make the restriction a problem for him. I did not accuse him of violating it in this case until he brought it up on WP:AE and, even then I did not accuse him of violating it until he did so in a gross and obvious manner. As regards editing together, there is no reason why I would stop taking an interest in the representation of Barbara Schwarz here and if AN intends to continue adding Schwarz material then he can expect my continued interest and involvement. Again, I went out of my way to NOT make our disagreement in the article have anything to do with the harassment ruling and I repeatedly clarified for him that he is perfectly free to seek WP:DR on any issues related to article content that we may have. Gotta run now but that pretty well sums it up. Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN constantly claims that he does not understand the ruling but when it is clearly explained to him, he ignores the explanation and grossly violates it by trotting out his collections of old, out-of-context diffs regarding me If it ever was explained I honestly don't remember or didn't see it. Please assume good faith and show me where it was explained when/how my behavior crossed into the area of harassment. The examples I've cited are not out of context when discussing the difference between harassment and acceptable behavior. If Template:Multicol This:

3/8 The attempted WP:RfC/U by myself, Smee and perhaps other editors who found themselves unable to resolve their disputes with him.
Answering a question about it posed by a neutral editor during my RfA

and

...is harassment...

If one assumes good faith I tried to resolve a dispute involving several editors through dispute resolution, requested admin tools to help with some backlogs and in the process answered a question, then asked for independent feedback, later asking uninvolved admins if it is a personal attack to document an editor's uncivil behavior?

If one assumes bad faith, I'm not sure what they think I was doing because they'd have to assume I was out to attack him rather than resolve disputes. This doesn't describe the situation because I'd never intentionally set out to attack someone, since it doesn't actually solve anything and would actually work against me. Template:Multicol-break

...and...

Template:Multicol-break this:
*(Note, these diffs are Justanother posting his disputes regarding Smee's editing on WP:ANI/WP:AN3R and that none of them are about me. Why bring up his dealings with Smee up? To show that I'm not trying to attack him when I say other editors have had difficulty editing with him, and help explain why I felt the RfC/U was appropriate. Diffs before the RfC/U are underlined)*

...wasn't, what's the difference?

If one assumes good faith Justanother was simply being diligent about perceived violations of the rules regarding this editor. If one assumes bad faith, he was following an editor who was being recognized for adding material he found objectionable. Template:Multicol-end I honestly think the difference is that people do not assume good faith on my part, based on accusations by a popular admin who no longer seems to be editing here and didn't take the time to actually look at the conversation/context of what she cited as evidence. I never even asked that he be blocked, and have said numerous times that I don't want to see anyone banned. Even now I'm asking just that ordinary dispute resolution be used for future disagreements and am not and never have asked for him to be ruled against. Accusing me of editing under bad faith given these facts has been hard to come to grips with. Anynobody 07:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only specific finding against you was that you were prohibited from harassing Justanother. Another finding specifically said it implied nothing about your editing. As no-one is allowed to harass another user (see WP:HARASS) the effect is to specifically order you not to do something that you should not have been doing anyway. The article probation for all scientology articles affects you just as much as every other editor. In those circumstances I see no cause to interfere with the remedies in this case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should explain that I'm not asking for article probation to be changed. Did you see this finding? Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS#Harassment of User:Justanother by User:Anynobody I have been blocked twice for trying to find out more information about it, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS#Log of blocks and bans. Anynobody 21:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Privatemusings

I'm willing to give this one a chance.

Original case located here.

I propose

Repeal

Privatemusings banned for 90 days

3) Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)' editing privileges are revoked for a period of 90 days. The revocation affects all accounts.

Impose

Privatemusings placed on mentorship.

3) Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)' is placed under involuntary mentorship until 29 Feb 2008. The commitee appoints Mercury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as mentor in this case.

Thanks for consideration. M-ercury at 00:40, January 14, 2008

Free Republic

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic#Free_Republic_placed_on_article_probation

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

The article is about a conservative Internet forum founded by Jim Robinson. User:Eschoir is a former member of that forum who was permanently banned in 1998 for creating nearly 100 sockpuppet accounts for purposes of disruption. He has been called "the ubertroll Eschoir," and the person using this descriptive term was clearly not biased against him by any sympathies with Free Republic. Eschoir was so disruptive that Robinson found it necessary to spend $110,000 on a federal lawsuit to obtain a permanent injunction against him. If he ever starts another account at Free Republic, he can be jailed for contempt of court. This is the mother of all WP:COI problems. Eschoir never should have been allowed to edit the Free Republic article.

Nevertheless, Fred Bauder was willing to AGF, as seen on Eschoir's User talk page. From that moment forward, Eschoir steadily transformed the Free Republic article into his own bitter little personal blog. It was an inventory of every petty little feud that occurred between Free Republic members, and every nutball statement that was ever said in a ten-year history of about 2 million posts in their forum. The article gradually moved farther and farther away from compliance with WP:NPOV.

At one point, he added an edit containing the word "penis", describing an alleged event involving two real people: Kristinn Taylor, a prominent participant at Free Republic, and another participant using the alias "Dr. Raoul." Since the article isn't about a topic dealing with sexuality or medicine, this immediately attracted my attention regarding a possible WP:BLP violation. (Since then, Eschoir has admitted that the alleged event never occurred.)

I placed a final warning for vandalism on Eschoir's Talk page and started actively editing the article to bring it into NPOV compliance. Ever since that moment, he has been making false WP:SOCK accusations, [159] see edit summary see edit summary see edit summary [160] [161] [162] see edit summary [163] [164] see edit summary [165] [166] and occupied territory that's best described as a continuous violation of WP:NPOV, WP:TE, WP:DE, WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:DBAD.[167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] Eschoir expanded a quotation from Robinson into a blockquote, continuing his campaign of cherry-picking quotations that make Free Republic look like a collection of nutballs and criminals. He chopped up a Talk page post into an incomprehensible mess by inserting a contentious and contemptuous response between its lines.

Eschoir then began to engage in a full-fledged edit war to revert edits that were supported by consensus, and clearly intended to restore NPOV.[173] [174] [175] [176] [177] see edit summary

When User:BenBurch offered to do a complete rewrite, or “refactoring” of the article in an effort to end the edit war, at first it seemed like a good idea. Eschoir offered several recommendations, including using a reverse chronology format, but couldn't resist making another jab at FR regarding "volunteer shock troops" and "holy war." (See also here regarding reverse chronology format.)

Rather than wait for BenBurch to do it, Eschoir did the refactoring himself on a "sandbox" page. Now it's obvious why Eschoir wants to go with a reverse chronology. It enables him to stuff all of the following epithets, from recent critics describing Free Republic, into the first 161 words of the article:

vile
hateful
besmirching Christian values
some pretty sick people posting
inciting the murder of Hillary Clinton
racist and homophobic
poor moderation
victimized by a wave of purges

Eschoir’s continued efforts to demean anyone on the Talk:Free Republic page who doesn’t share his position: [178] [179] Said efforts have been recognized as demeaning by others: [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] This is a perfect example of why COI editors need to be watched closely. Please take the necessary action.

I previously brought this up for enforcement at WP:ANI Arbitration Enforcement. I was told that your ruling was so vague that it's unenforceable, and that I should bring this issue to WP:RFAR Clarification. The ruling from the previous arbitration must be modified so that no administrator could possibly misunderstand that he has the authority, and the duty, to ban editors from editing the Free Republic article and related pages for being disruptive, failing to assume good faith, or making personal attacks. Specifically, please ban Eschoir from editing the article. It's been 10 years since he was banned from Free Republic for creating nearly 100 sockpuppet accounts. His refactoring of the Free Republic article demonstrates that even after 10 years, he can't resist the temptation to turn a Wikipedia article into a Poison pen letter to Jim Robinson. Samurai Commuter (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blatantly disruptive editing on any article can be dealt with by any uninvolved administrator, following consultation on WP:ANI where appropriate. Arbitration (or arbitration clarification) is not always necessary, and may not be needed here if administrators conclude that the problem is serious enough. With specific respect to Eschoir, the editing history described above is very troubling, although I would welcome comment here by Eschoir before reaching a further conclusion. (I see that Eschoir was apparently not notified of this request for clarification, and have left him a talkpage note asking him to respond.) It is also noteworthy that a proposed finding of fact during last year's case, though not ultimately adopted, stated that "Eschoir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) bears the name of an editor banned by Free Republic whose disruption of the site was so severe that an injunction was entered by a federal district court forbidding disruption of the site." If User:Eschoir is, or seeks to emulate, the individual covered by the court decision, then it might indeed be suitable for him to discontinue editing this particular article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're stuck with this one, Brad. The previous article probation was advisory only, stating that the situation would be reviewed upon motion of an Arbitrator or request from an editor. After a very cursory review there is nothing in Eschoir's recent history that would be disruptive enough for a page ban in the absence of previous DR, and as you know community-enforced page bans are still somewhat novel. Thatcher 19:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Samurai Commuter is clearly BryanfromPalatine, picking up from where he left before his permaban. I will give you my evidence should it be required. I think it's obvious. If there is a need to respond to his diatribe, I will do so. I will clarify again one serious sounding misconception.

"Eschoir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) bears the name of an editor banned by Free Republic whose disruption of the site was so severe that an injunction was entered by a federal district court forbidding disruption of the site." If User:Eschoir is, or seeks to emulate, the individual covered by the court decision,

There was no "court decision," no hearings, no witnesses, no trials. Because I testified for the LATimes in the coppyright case, they sued me in state court for a million dollars. The wrong state court. I removed it to Federal Court for strategic reasons. They spent $110,000 pursuing me, then settled the case on my terms. Since they got no damages, they wanted at least an injunction, so I gave them one in the settlement papers. There was no wrongdoing alleged in the settlement and releases. Their lawyer, Bryan's mentor, was later disbarred.

Thannks again for the Heads-up. Eschoir (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Newyorkbrad said: "With specific respect to Eschoir, the editing history described above is very troubling, although I would welcome comment here by Eschoir before reaching a further conclusion." Eschoir has offered no comments about his editing history. I suggest that some explanation of his editing history is called for here, in light of the many troublesome diffs I've posted here. But Eschoir remains silent. Samurai Commuter (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

outing, harassment

Samurai Commuter placed links here to Freerepublic.com, linking to harassing and outing of Wikipedia editors here. I removed it and mailed oversight. It looks like there are other things like that on that message board. Is it appropriate for users to be linking there? Lawrence Cohen 07:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the editor "Samurai Commuter" is the banned editor "BryanFromPalatine", based on the comments and actions on this page. See also this evidence in a current RFAR: here. The user has asked me to restore a modified version of his 'evidence' to this section, but I am disinclined to do so as I have mailed Oversight to have it removed for exposing personal information about other editors here. Lawrence Cohen 19:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Lawrence Cohen blanked an entire section of ArbCom evidence, claiming that I posted links to personal information about Eschoir. In the preceding section, Eschoir admitted that he is the real person who was sued by an Internet forum, for creating nearly 100 sockpuppets for purposes of disruption. Eschoir then provided a ridiculous narrative of that litigation, which had ending in a federal injunction against him.

I posted two links to online court documents, proving that Eschoir's narrative was ridiculous. I also posted a lot of diffs from right here at Wikipedia that took time to compile, and proved Eschoir's continued disruptive activity and edit warring. If privacy was really the issue, it would have been sufficient to delete the links to the two court documents and leave a pleasant note on my User Talk page. Instead, Lawrence Cohen blanked the entire section, reported me as a single purpose attack account, and had me blocked indefinitely. He is now refusing to restore the evidence section he deleted, or even discuss the matter. Please see his User Talk page.

I'd appreciate a ruling on this at ArbCom's convenience. By admitting that he is the real person in question, by prevaricating about the federal injunction against him, and by continuing his efforts to turn a Wikipedia article into a Poison pen letter, Eschoir has opened the door to this discussion. Samurai Commuter (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please send a copy of any information that you believe was wrongfully blanked to the Arbitration Committee mailing list by e-mail. Please also respond to the assertion that you are the same individual as the banned user BrianFromPalatine. If you are, you are still entitled to have your concern with the article considered if you submit it by e-mail, but you should not be posting on-wiki. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on User:Samurai Commuter's concerns, but the accounts 52 edits all seem to be related to this subject. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When there's a disagreement on content, we're asked to work it out on the article's Talk page. My reward for trying to do that is the suggestion that I'm an SPA. Samurai Commuter (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

Motions

Shortcuts

This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions.

Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives.

Make a motion (Arbitrators only)

You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 == Current requests ==
-=== Plovdiv external link ===
-'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Koal4e|Koal4e]] '''at''' 00:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
-==== Involved parties ====
-*{{userlinks|Koal4e}}
-*{{userlinks|Avidius}}
-*{{userlinks|ILike2BeAnonymous}}
-; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
-*[[User_talk:ILike2BeAnonymous#Plovdiv_Granada_of_the_East_external_link|ILike2BeAnonymous]]
-*[[User_talk:Avidius#Arbitration|Avidius]]
-; Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
-*[[User talk:ILike2BeAnonymous#Plovdiv_Granada of the East external link]]
-*[[Talk:Plovdiv#External Link - Plovdiv - Granada of the East]]
-*[[Talk:Plovdiv#Clean up External Links]]
-==== Statement by Koal4e ====
-Since late October 2007 there has been a constant inclusion and removal of an external link on the [[Plovdiv]] page on Wikipedia, this external link takes you to a page that is both biased and factually inaccurate when talking about the city of Plovdiv. There have been numerous attempts by editors to remove the article but one editor [[User:ILike2BeAnonymous|ILike2BeAnonymous]] keeps reinstating the external link even after conceding that the article has both bias and factual inaccuracies in it.
-My concern with this external link is that it does not represent a true picture of the city of Plovdiv, if you were to read the article it would portray the city to be run down except for the mosques within it which is totally untrue. I also want to mention that the article even goes as far as to say "The outside walls are used as a urinal by Bulgarian drunks," while talking about a mosque. Can the writer clearly say that he knows Bulgarians choose to walk up to the mosque after a night drinking and use it as a toilet?
-I do wonder about the reasons for this editor constantly reinstating this link even after heated debate and many agreeing it should not be included and not entering in to dialect when attempts have been made at resolution.
-==== Statement by {party 2} ====
-==== Clerk notes ====
-:
-==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/8/0/0) ====
-* Decline. Premature, content dispute, etc. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]]</small></sup> 00:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
-* Reject per jpgordon. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] 03:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
-* Decline. The filing party has brought this dispute here in good faith, but the appropriate dispute resolution method is not arbitration, which is the ''last'' step in Wikipedia [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]]. Although the disagreement has been going on for a long time, I don't see the involvement of too many other editors. Consider a request for a [[WP:3O|third opinion]] or an article-content [[WP:RfC|request for comment]] as the next step toward resolving this dispute amicably. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 03:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
-* Reject, per Brad. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]]&nbsp;([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 07:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
-* Decline. Please use the previous steps in dispute resolution. [[User:Sam Blacketer|Sam Blacketer]] ([[User talk:Sam Blacketer|talk]]) 10:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
-* Decline - similar reasoning. [[user:FT2|FT2]]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span></sup> 13:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
-* Reject. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]] ([[User talk:FloNight|talk]]) 20:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
-* Reject. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up''® </sup></font>]]</small> 20:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
-----
 === The Television Episodes Edit Wars ===
 '''Initiated by ''' [[User:John254|John254]] '''at''' 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)