Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:58, 22 February 2008

ArbitrationCommittee

Shortcuts

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

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

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/4/0

[edit]

Open cases

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

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

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)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Linguistic/Cultural Bias Towards United States in "Hacker"

Initiated by Andrew81446 (talk) at 06:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Andrew81446 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
rtc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Pengo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Cyrius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Kirrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Colonel Warden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Nandesuka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Army1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Luna Santin (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

RFC

Two administrators (Pengo, Luna Santin) have been involved in this debate, one of whom singled me out for direct punitive measures, the other staunchly defending the stance taken in the current article. The actions of both administrators removed trust in the intermediary stages of the dispute resolution process that rely on such adminstrators. After the RFC, I went back to the very beginning, inviting everybody to define the audience for the Hacker article, and asking everybody to state what their idea of English Wikipedia's audience is. These genuine attempts at building consensus were not participated in by anyone else (they all took a "vote" and archived my requests off the page without even attempting to answer). Hence the final stage considered was arbitration.

Statement by Andrew81446

Article: Hacker

Summary of all claims, counter-claims, and supporting evidence for the discussion.

On November 1st, 2007, a comment was written about the cultural and linguistic bias of this article affecting its content. No edit was performed on the article seven weeks following. One person (User:rtc) strongly voiced an opinion. Apart from that one person, no-one said anything. The page was then tagged on the 18th December 2007 with a {{globalize}} tag to warn both readers and editors that suspected bias was at play, but the tag was removed two days later with no comment on the talk page, "spam" being instead cited in the removals change log. On December 23rd, after no further objections were received, I invoked the "interpretation of silence" rule as outlined in the consensus policy and applied the changes. An intractible discussion and edit war has since ensued.

Main Claims Made During The Discussion

1) Article Scope. The exact intended audience of the disputed aricle has never been defined, resulting in every claim regarding the article's content being evaded. This has resulted in relentless arguing, edit warring, and no progress on the article.

2) Consensus System Failure. Without agreement from all editors on who they believe the intended audience article is, consensus is fundamentally impossible and so, therefore, is writing the article's content, let alone guaranteeing it's neutrality and balance.

3) Documentation, not Definition. Wikipedia policy states that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so it should document, not define, a subject. Most of the disputed article comprises a debate about what the overlaps/differences are of the word "hacker" within the US (although "United States" is not mentioned in the article).

4) English as a Global Language. English is not the native language, nor the preserve, of the United States. The disputed article used US-specific acronyms, jargon, place and society names, amongst other things that all go unexplained, misleading readers of English Wikipedia these US-specific entities were in place (or known about) across the entire English-speaking world. "Hacker" is a word in the English Language that has meanings that differ depending on the region, so an article titled only as "hacker" must neutrally unify all contexts of the word. English Wikipedia is also used by non-English speakers as the bible about the English speaking world when it comes to learning about both language and culture, therefore general articles should specifically avoid or disambiguate those phrases, or word meanings that have a significant historical/cultural anchoring in just one country.

Situation Summary

I have been repeatedly lectured on my personal talk page, intimidated on the article's talk page, been the subject of unprovoked and unrequested racist rants (look for "13:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)" in this post), my edits on talk pages have been moved around, edited, and archived out of sight. Very recently I was being accused of operating a sock puppet, and just now an editor told me to "fuck off" while posting and filing this report. English Wikipedia is for the entire English-speaking world, including me (and the millions of people whose views I represent), and this bias should be removed, regardless of how many people who support the current stand believe otherwise.

Andrew81446 (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider [1] to be a racist rant, then your sarcasm detector is broken. I suggest buying a new one. :-) (Hint: Try re-reading it, paying attention to the part immediately before the colon (':'), and to the last two sentences.) --Army1987 (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:rtc volunteered that information when it was specifically not asked for. And in my opinion, there is nothing "broken" with somebody's "sarcasm detector" when it comes to issues of race. If you walked into your local bar and a foreign person asked you a simple yes or no question and you replied with that torrent, you would be physically beaten. People hiding behind the anonymity that Wikipedia affords does not detract from the fact that that torrent of nationalist abuse was not asked for, regardless of whether he was "smiling sarcastically" as he typed it. So Wikipedia condones racism if it's said "sarcastically"? I'm slowly but surely getting the picture. Andrew81446 (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to "it's a content issue"

As part of the Aribtration Committees ruling, I would grateful if the following questions could be answered to so that, in future, I know (and I can tell other people) exactly where one stands in the Wikipedia system before bringing a case to arbitration:

1) In terms of content, is English Wikipedia considered to be a vehicle for documenting the United States, or for documenting the entire English-speaking world?

2) Does the removal of a {{globalize}} with the reason of "spam", or non-US editors being told to "fuck off" when voicing their opinions just because they don't conform to the majority of the US editors already present, constitute a content problem?

3) How does Wikipedia guarantee that the content of other English-speaking countries, and non-IT people who don't edit on this system, makes it into articles when those kinds of editors are not present in the system in nearly as heavy numbers as the United States IT/Academia-related editors? Who actually enforces policies like Naming Conventions, Neutrality, and "Not a Democracy"?

It is common sense that each country in the world has its own language, even within the English-speaking world. How many of the US editors on this article have actually been to another country in the English-speaking world and experienced culture on a long-term basis? Yet, their comments about naming ('Computer Security', 'Black Hat') are based on terms that are not recognised by lay-people either inside or outside of the US. Current Wikipedia Naming Convention policy is explicit: "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists". This is particularly so for single word titles, like "hacker", that have different meanings depending on which country you're accessing Wikipedia from. The content must also confirm to that principle. There are not physically enough IT editors from other countries, and there are virtually no non-IT editors, and yet these people make up the majority of the English Wikipedia's intended audience. With over 2,200,000 articles on Wikipedia, if every non-US contributor to an article with a single-word title meets a four-month campaign of intimidation, by editors and administrators alike, then the bias in English Wikipedia is a staggeringly serious problem.

Andrew81446 (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every party in this debate has been asked on multiple occasions (09:28, 15 February 2008, 10:18, 18 February 2008) to define the audience for this article so that content issues can be resolved. What else can one do when every other party in the debate have voted together to point-blank refused to reply to content issues on every count, instead, archiving the content discussion out of sight calling it a Gordian Knot. Yes: "Cutting the Gordian Knot" was how genuine attempts at having content discussions have been derided. How else is one meant to build the consensus for content decisions can be built upon a common understanding of who the article is being written for. You cannot have a debate about content when all parties are deliberately hiding their prejudices behind a wall of silence. All members have had four months to admit their is a problem with the content. Nobody has admitted that the content is wrong, in a whole four months. Everybody has had ample opportunity to admit there's a problem and we have had ample opportunity to fix it. People have to admit what the problem is. Without people admitting what the problem is by themselves, the problem can never be fixed.

Andrew81446 (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by rtc

The problem is not Andrew's view that the article is biased. There is a grain of truth in what he says. (Although his theories that the article has been invaded by people from the US is far-fetched.) That has been acknowledged from the very beginning in this conflict by me and other editors. But instead of working in a civil, piecemeal and cooperative manner and in a way that preserves the work already done, Andrew merely used the talk page for endless rants, repeating the same claims again and again. He accepted no other solution so far than to immediately replace the complete article with his own version. Andrew repeatedly stressed that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Yet he judged relevance exactly as a dictionary would—by the prevalence of the respective meaning in ordinary language. I think that this is wrong. Relevance should be judged according to how much good literature is available on the subject. Andrew sees only one solution for all problems: To enforce his own view by authority (just as he tries to do with this arbcom request); and if people disagree, he explains that not with his own failure to give convincing arguments or to write a better replacement for the article, but with the bias, nationality etc. of those who oppose his views and with an alleged failure of the consensus system. I certainly agree that consensus is a dangerous thing and that minority opinions need to be protected, regardless of how weird they may seem. But that requires that people who hold the minority opinion in turn take the majority opinion seriously, even if they do not agree with it, and take it for granted that they may be wrong in the end. That is exactly what Andrew fails to do. --rtc (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pengo

Rather than "globalizing" the article, Andrew81446 has simply replaced it with a different topic: largely that of Hacker (computer security). The two articles do overlap in scope, but he has simply replaced the scope of one article with that of the other. Andrew81446 has ignored the existing Hacker (computer security) article (which I have to admit I did create to make the Hacker article less confusing as it did once skip between the two related meanings). If he's looking to (re)merge the two articles then that's a different matter, but he's simply ignored the article that is on the topic he's concerned with, instead of editing it directly, much to the frustration of other Wikipedians. I have even suggestion swapping the articles so that "Hacker" becomes "Hacker (enthusiast)", and "Hacker (computer security)" becomes "Hacker", however this suggestion, like most things mentioned to Andrew81446 in talk pages, was ignored. I've given more detailed opinions already in the talk page of the article: Talk:Hacker/Archive3#Sources_Used_in_the_Disputed_Article (search for Pengo). Also, while I am an administrator, I'd like to note I have not used any administrator privileges in this case. —Pengo 10:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's enough debate already about what "hacker" means, but I'd also like to note that "hacker" does not imply "criminal". It may mean someone who gains unauthorized access, something that may or may not be a criminal act. For example, a "hacker" may be someone who hacks a network printer to print a document in the office while the print server is down; or someone who legally hacks their ipod to by-pass overly restrictive DRM. The media uses hacker in this sense also. This is why there is an article called hacker (computer security) and not "hacker (criminal)". —Pengo 10:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cyrius

Statement by Kirrus

Statement by User:Colonel Warden

My part in this was to respond to an RFC. Regarding the content, there seems to be some tendentious POV-pushing from both sides. On the one hand we have hackers as the heroes that built the internet. On the other hand, we have the complainant's view that hackers are nothing but criminals. There are now multiple articles covering these POVs as can be seen at Hacker (disambiguation). The article in question might best be reduced to a disambiguation page rather than trying to accommodate such extreme viewpoints together.

There seems to have been bad behaviour on both sides - bad language and ranting. The main point of special interest is whether there is some systemic bias as Wikipedia itself is a product of the open-source movement that lays claim to primary usage of the word hacker.

Colonel Warden (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nandesuka

This is a content dispute. I first became involved with the dispute on Hacker, as an editor, on January 21st. I noticed that there was a stale edit war occurring, where a single editor, Andrew81446, was replacing the consensus version of the article with his preferred version, which seemed to be a complete rewrite. In December and January, at least 6 editors reverted Andrew repeatedly, several of them asking to discuss his changes on the article's talk page, and to discuss his changes in small steps. Some of those editors participated as a result of an article RFC; Andrew81446 was unwilling to accept that the consensus was that his version of the article was unreadable. Admin Luna Santin appropriately protected the page for a week on February 12th. During that period, discussion on the talk page was voluminous, but unfruitful. Andrew81446 was by turns aggressive, accusatory, and seemed constitutionally unable to discuss any issue using less than what seemed like several thousand words per edit. Towards the end of the week, Andrew81446 began discussing and speculating, inappropriately, on the nationalities and employment histories of his fellow editors. At this point, I proposed archiving the talk page, since it was nigh-unreadable due to Andrew81446's edits, and recommending to Andrew that he follow the dispute resolution procedure.

On February 19th, Andrew81446 used a sockpuppet to post a rambling, accusatory message where he pretended to be an uninvolved party. At that point I archived the talk page and we have proceeded to get work done on the article. Andrew81446 has reverted back his 50k "Summary of Claims and Counter-claims for Arbitrators" onto the Talk:Hacker page. I have been, and continue to intend to, removing that as disruptive whenever it appears.

In summary: this is a content dispute started and continued by a user who has not, in good faith, tried any method of resolving disputes. This case should be rejected, and he should be dealt with like any other disruptive user. If the committee decides to take the case, the topic of the case should be limited to the behavior and editing patterns of the users involved (including Andrew81446 and myself), and not the underlying content dispute. Nandesuka (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Luna Santin

This strikes me as a bit premature for arbitration, but I admit I'm a latecomer to the dispute.

I became involved in early February, after noticing and observing an edit war at the Hacker article, in which Andrew was repeatedly forcing major changes to the article, and those changes were repeatedly being reverted along with requests that he avoid rewriting the entire article in one fell swoop and instead seek consensus on the talk page, or make smaller changes over time. I left him what I figured was a polite note asking that he bear in mind the requests of his fellow editors and a vague reminder that edit wars regularly result in blocking/protection, and got a lengthy reply accusing me of bias, power abuse, racism, and so on. This set the tone for our exchange, unfortunately, the bulk of which can be seen at User talk:Luna Santin#Your message and User talk:Andrew81446#civility (2nd).

On several occassions, he's asked me to "reprimand" other editors, at which point I've asked him to point out any user sinking as many reverts into the page as he has -- he's refused to do so, repeatedly. To his credit, it's true that a person cannot edit war alone, he seems to be very much outnumbered in the dispute and is acting under pressure because of that, and he's never technically breached 3RR.

Not too long after that, I protected the article for a week (just expired the other day). The situation took a bit of a turn around the protection's expiry, with several editors accusing Andrew of possible sockpuppetry via 87.41.56.30 (talk · contribs) and the otherwise mentioned archival of a large amount of text on Talk:Hacker, text which I believe Andrew wants kept for now.

Arbitration is one option, but getting more people involved may prove a better means of breaking the current impasse. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Army1987

I don't know of any serious evidence that the understanding of the word hacker is significantly different in the US than in the rest of the English speaking word. Anyway, given that the word has several different but partly related meanings, I think the best thing is having a specific article about each meaning, and having Hacker having a short introduction briefly noting that there are different meanings; a short section about each meaning, each one with a link to the main article; and a discussion on the overlaps and differences between meanings. That is, the same structure of the article as it exists now ([2]). The wording could be improved, of course. Also, the title of Hacker (academia) can be discussed, but I don't like a title such as Hacker (United States), as there are people using that meaning also outside of US, although possibly less frequently than there (although I don't believe such a significant difference exists), and the "criminal" meaning is also used in the US. (I don't like the title Hacker (academia) either, but I think it is less bad, and I can't think of anything much better — the obvious Hacker (free software) is inadequate because the hacker (ESR's sense) subculture predates the free software movement as it exists today.) But Andrew, rather than fixing the wording of this article, or seriously discussing any title, first massively replaced it with an article with the same scope of Hacker (computer security), and then, when it was reverted, it added {{Globalize|USA}} tags, citing, as the only evidence that the pro-free software hacker bias (which I fail to perceive) is a pro-US bias, the fact that an US dictionary happens to report that meaning, and the concise version of an UK dictionary doesn't (though the full version of the same dict does). --Army1987 (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved editor ElKevbo

I've done some editing on this article in the past although I have recently been inactive. Excepting some of the alleged user conduct issues, the core of this dispute is clearly content. Andrew81446 does raise some good points and it's a shame that we haven't adequately responded to them but that should not be implied as consensus to make significant unilateral changes to the article particularly when several other editors have expressed opposition to said changes. --ElKevbo (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved admin Stifle

Recommend this case be rejected as a content dispute. No real behaviour problems here that standard admin action can't fix. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Comment. I'd like to hear from rtc (talk · contribs · email) before committing myself but it seems to me this issue is currently more suited to mediation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Primarily a content dispute. Paul August ☎ 17:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully awaiting comments from others. Not inclined to anticipate a view on the case until more of others' views is seen. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, content dispute. Kirill 13:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline at this time. Much of the issue raised is a content dispute that should be engaged by earlier stages of dispute resolution. To the extent there are user-conduct issues involved, they also appear resolvable by means short of an arbitration case, at this time. The request can be re-filed later if user-conduct problems continue and other dispute resolution fails. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WSYX-TV Dispute

Initiated by Csneed (talk) at 16:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

csneed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Rollosmokes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the reques

Diff. 1: I posted my intention to file for arbitration on his Talk page. He has yet to respond, nor has he responded to my request for an explanation why he deleted an historical fact from the above article.

User was not notified case was filed, I notified him on his talk page. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Link 1: I have tried to discuss this with Party 2 on his Talk page, but he has refused to respond.
Link 2

Statement by Csneed

I am a television broadcaster and historian, and formerly worked at WSYX-TV in Columbus, Ohio. In the history section of the article on WSYX-TV, I added a line concerning the former station owners purchasing WLWF-FM in Columbus many years ago from a company that also owned WLWC-TV in Columbus (that station is now WCMH-TV). The radio station ownership and transfer is backed up by FCC records from that era. "Rollosmokes" has twice removed that reference from the history, as if to delete any accurate facts from the article, and he has refused to acknowledge why he deleted the reference. I am in broadcasting; he is not. I am a broadcast historian; he is not. That reference is historically important to the article because the radio station frequency is still active in Columbus, and many readers would not know that what is now a well-known radio station in Columbus, used to be owned by one of the other major television stations in the city. If "Rollosmokes" deletes this historical reference, he is also capable of removing other pertinent historical facts from articles, and I believe any edits he mades may possibly be damaging to the knowledge that readers have come to expect from Wikipedia. I would also request that any edits Rollosmokes makes to articles, be first scrutinized by administrators, to determine 1), why he is making the edits, and 2)his being required to furnish a verifiable factual basis for making such edits. Calvin Sneed Csneed (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rollosmokes

Csneed claims the information he describes -- the connection between the former WLWC television station, the former WLWF radio station, and their founding owner, Crosley Broadcasting -- was "never been mentioned before in the article (WSYX)." Mr. Sneed obviously didn't read the entire article, because he would have come across this quote. This sentence can be found at the end of the article's second paragraph. It's been there for quite some time, over a year and-a-half in fact. ([3]):

"One of channel 6's competitors, Crosley/Avco-owned WLWC (channel 4, now WCMH-TV), was also given grandfathered protection through a similar situation."

When he added the information again at the end of the first paragraph (where the mention is made that the radio station was purchased by Taft/WTVN from Crosley) I deleted it and labeled it as "unncessary changes" -- the mention of Crosley's ownership of WLWC was already present, thus it was redundant to mention it again. ([4]) It was that simple, and for Mr. Sneed to take this issue to arbitration was very unncessary, and a waste of everyone's time. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:07, 19 February 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. Though clearly filed in good faith, this dispute is obviously premature for arbitration, which represents the last step in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Other forms of dispute resolution should be pursued first, such as continued talkpage discussion, seeking a third opinion or an article-content request for content, or if necessary mediation. Please note that if we decline to consider this matter in arbitration, this does not mean that there is not an issue that needs to be addressed, simply that the complexities and delays associated with arbitration may not be necessary. Pro-active assistance from an administrator or mediator might be helpful here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline; please use previous steps in dispute resolution before bringing an issue here. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Premature. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Premature. Paul August ☎ 06:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Both editors are editing in good faith -- that is, both are trying to genuinely improve the article. It sounds like the question being disputed is whether the existing mention is sufficient and informative, and that can readily be discussed further on the talk page. If discussion were still not to work then other means exist such as request for other editors to review the matter, request for third opinion, and ultimately mediation. Try some of those first, understanding that you both are editing for good reasons and seeking a good article, and simply disagreeing what is needed to be said to make it "good". That should readily resolve the issue, with your joint goodwill, and is by far the best approach. Hope that helps. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

Initiated by cfrito (talk) at 04:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

cfrito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Marvin Shilmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

04:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by cfrito

There exists an ongoing and increasingly acrimonious debate over certain content for the NWT article. At issue is the inclusion of the names of the translators of this Bible edition. The publisher has reported several times since its initial publication that these names are confidential at the behest of the translators themselves, even after their deaths. Two ex-Jehovah's Witnesses of some importance published similar but different lists after they left the JW organization and began a career of anti-writing. Many other anti-writers have perpetuated these lists. There is no documentation other than the representation of these two anti-writers, and what they wrote was from recollections and published in their own memoirs. The apparent relevance to the Article is that critics have claimed inability to assess the veracity of the translated work without being able to assess the translators' backgrounds. Thus the accuracy of the names as presented is key to being relevant to the Article. There is sufficient doubt about the reliability of the source material since it tests the limits of reliable sources criteria. Editor Marvin_Shilmer has commenced a battle of discrediting me and others editors which sets the stage for increasing acrimony. Shilmer has tested the WP:3RR rule many times when any editor dares oppose him. When ultimately my original edits were acknowledged positively by the mediators, Shilmer took credit. I exposed the issue. It should be noted that the alleged names in question had been marked as speculation for quite some time and were only recently elevated to "apparent fact" which is supported by Marvin_Shilmer. I respectfully request that a review of the use these alleged translators' names use in the article be examined along with how they are presented, and also the actions of editor Marvin_Shilmer in dealing with the issues I raised.

Edited to add: I will not spend a lot of time defending matters. I asked for arbitration, not so much for content, but on the unreliably of two underlying primary sources and of Shilmer's tendency to revert edits by others despite being silent when the matters were offered for discussion on the Talk pages. Perhaps this was misplaced. While I still oppose the inclusion of these names on the source reliability issue, I have agreed to a compromise because it seems like it the list be well cautioned. I believe that in an objective review of the matter now under consideration, the common thread will be obvious enough. For the record, Shilmer repeatedly refused to answer any questions about his bias (i.e., his standing as a JW or as an apostate JW) and I took his silence and the other articles written under this pseudonym as his apostasy. He could have, early on, cleared this up with his statement below. He chose to let it take the path it took. Perhaps Jeffro77 can give some testimony into the original repeated intentional antagonistic behavior by Shilmer toward me which set the stage for this steadily increasing acrimony. And Shilmer was a very willing partner in all this too. Shilmer has set a pattern of frustrating discussions and irritating any who question his edits. Shilmer has claimed infallibility. Look into the edit history regarding the matter with Vassili78 and the slurs Shilmer hurled at that editor. Indeed Shilmer said of Vassilis78, that he is worse than a plagiarist. I have not received a single email from anyone suggesting that I have been treating Shilmer unfairly but I have received one thanking me for challenging him. I asked Seddon69 to counsel me privately several times along the way as I felt things were going too far. For my participation, I offer this public apology to all. -- cfrito (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Marvin Shilmer

I am glad this situation will finally reach some formal level. The madness needs to end. The article New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is a broad subject covering the version’s history, characteristics, criticisms and publishing. At issue is the articles inclusion of names of translators that various sources have put forth. The article has a long history of including this information. Editor Cfrito deleted these names from the article's main text were they have been published for a long time. As a compromise I relegated the information (“the names”) to footnotes in the reference section. I also removed one name entirely because it was unverified by sources. Editor Cfrito rejected this compromise edit and persisted in deleting the information (the names).

The information Cfrito objects to comes from multiple primary and secondary sources. A brief overview of these sources is available on a sandbox page I set up for continuing to work on this article throughout the current dispute. Information about the authors of these sources is available on the same talk page. You will also find on the same page a concise address of specific complaints made by Cfrito on this issue.

My presentation of this information (the names) is to offer it as the word of the men who published the information in the first place. Arbitrators can view how I have presented this information on my NWT sandbox article. Along with this information readers will also see where I present the views of the version’s publisher.

Specifically, Cfrito is wrong when he asserts that the relevance of the disputed information arises because “critics have claimed inability to assess the veracity of the translated work without being able to assess the translators' backgrounds”. Critics have various reasons for their criticisms on this issue, but chief among these is that when the publisher released the information it expressed that its translators were competent biblical scholars. Critics doubt this claim and have tried to verify it, with a result that the identities and credentials of the version's translators became a point of issue. Notwithstanding their reasons, secondary source on top of secondary source demonstrates that when it comes to this Bible version the issue of who translated it is one of several priority points of criticism.

Cfrito has also asserted on several occasions that information about the names of this version’s translators leaked to the public from only two sources. This claim is unproven by Cfrito, and evidence (particularly from author Tony Wills) disputes it. Arbitrators can read all about this in fairly concise form on my sandbox talk page for this article. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: In view of Seddon69’s comments, I am compelled to state that it seems inappropriate for editors here to interpret Wikipedia policy when the issues relate to basic and explicit features of those policies. It would be inappropriate were I, for example, to make my own preferential interpretation of a Wikipedia policy and then treat that as authoritative for sake of asserting a preferential edit as worthy. If I have done this, I wish someone would point it out because I seek to avoid such behavior. If anything, I make attempts to scrupulously verify that whatever I add or remove from an article is based strictly on sources and/or weight of sources.

Whatever are the policies here (including interpretations) stability comes from editors following those policies. If editors are working under different rules there is unavoidable conflict. It is my opinion in this case that complaints of Cfrito stand in such stark contrast to Wikipedia policy that settling the current dispute is as easy as asking Cfrito to respond to a few basic questions about 1) what should determine information that goes into articles, 2) how that information should be presented in the article and 3) whether to let sources determine weight, value and relevancy. My understanding of policy is that all these are fueled by reliable published sources, and particularly secondary third-party sources. These determine what issues are valuable to a subject, how those issues should be presented and what weight a presentation should carry.

I want to learn and grow in the Wikipedia community, too. Hence please feel free to ask me any question that is deemed essential to settling the current dispute. No one wants this dispute settled more than I. There is work waiting to be done. We grow from test and challenge. Please take no pains to spare any feelings of mine. Where I am wrong I want to know in a straightforward fashion with no need for interpretation.

I see Seddon69 believes incivility of me. This is regrettable, and I want to again apologize for any misimpressions to my credit that leads anyone to think I believe Seddon69 in some way of poor character or otherwise bad. My feeling is that Seddon69 did the best he could. No one can ask more than our best.

Edited to add: In view of Slp1’s comments, I encourage administrators and arbitrators to examine issues of conduct on the part of all editors involved in this dispute. Where I am in need of correction, I want to hear it. This is part of growth for all of us. Of those quotations made by SlP1, they are all of my comments. I recommend each of them find examination in the context of the entire exchange with the parties involved. You will find these exchanges here, here, here, here and here. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: If arbitrators are going to address editor conduct rather than how Wikipedia policy addresses the issue of dispute (not content but how to arrive at content), then everyone’s editing conduct deserves scrutiny, and not just mine. Editor Cfrito has complained I have battled to discredit him. He has accused me of incivility. Remarkably, editor Slp1 alludes to issues of editor conduct, and then offers references only to edits of mine. Below I am providing a short list of what I have been exposed to by editor Cfrito in the way of conduct:

Cfrito has called me rabidly anti-JW, childish, a total moron, misleading, bamboozler, a fake, a quack, a despot, an virulent anti-writer of JW's.

Cfrito has accused me of lying, playing word games, lying again, lack of personal integrity, pretending to be neutral, personal agenda, cheap theatrics, game-playing, axe grinding, using loaded language, grandstanding, playing word games, plug books of friends, twisting words, plugging my own books, presenting a side show, shameless personal bias, raking up muck

Cfrito has invited me to seek professional psychiatric help. He has suggested I am not well enough to be an Editor. He has said I have bipolar phrasing as a constant editorial companion.

Cfrito has dared to assign a religious disposition to me by calling me a former member of the Jehovah's Witnesses religion not just once but twice. I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

I have not complained once about any of the above, until now. Now, because it looks like arbitrators may make conduct their concern rather than the cause of the editing dispute (how to arrive at content and not content itself) I am pointing out the above behavior. I have not complained about the forgoing language from Cfrito because none of it has any adverse effect worthy of my concern. However, I have complained about Cfrito’s repeated accusations that I am a plagiarist. He has done this not just once, but a second and a third time. This latter accusation has potential to ruin a reputation; hence why I complained. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: Cfrito alludes to remarks of mine of a particular edit by Vassilis78. Cfrito states, “Indeed Shilmer said of Vassilis78, that he is worse than a plagiarist.”

I am in academia. In my world plagiarism is a very serious thing. Very serious! But there is something worse. When someone intentionally writes and publishes something they know to be false, yet asserts it as true, this is worse than plagiarism. This is what Vassilis78 did. I am not referring to banter on a talk page. I am talking about an edit Vassilis78 made to an article. Specifically, when there was an issue of a person’s educational credentials, Vassilis78 inserted into the article: “Frederick Franz’s credentials are very good, since he has a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies.” Vassilis78 knew when he inserted his sentence that it was false, yet he placed it into the article anyway. Arbitrators can view the episode where this edit was discussed here. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seddon69

As the (attempted) mediator of this case i would like to make sure that the two parties understand that the Arbitration committee do not decide on content. If this case is to be accepted the content of your edits/wishes is not at judgment at this level it is your actions.

Regarding this, incivility has occurred by both parties, for example here by Marvin Shilmer, and here by Cfitro. There are more instances. The two were engaged in a prolonged edit war before the page was first locked.

At this moment in time, discussions are occurring at the Administrators Notice board for Incidents, Editor Assistance, my own talk page, the Article talk page, User Sand box talk pages, the Mediation talk page, the article talk page, and an RfC. None in these have resulted in a resolution of this matter yet. The two users have different ways of interpreting wikipedia policy and when in regards to such a controversial topic like the New World Translation, a longer term solution perhaps needs to be looked at.

Addition: Mediation case has been closed after a request to confirm the status of the case about whether it was to be extended again but i only had a response from one of the parties. I believe the dispute to be resolved but i cant confirm whether all parties are happy beyond what Marvin has provided below

Statement by mostly uninvolved Slp1

While the arbitration request has been framed for the most part as a content dispute, as such is likely outside the purview of this committee, I do believe that there are clear issues of user conduct here, as alluded to by the valiant Seddon69 who has been attempting mediation. The topic first came to my attention at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard along with User:Marvin Shilmer's incivility and failure to assume good faith. Multiple uninvolved editors who attempted to provide advice and opinions were commented upon: the following are just some sample edits from that board. I have not looked further, though note that Seddon69 mentions other examples, on other pages.

To Vassilis78 "I see that, again, you provide less than full information. Why do you keep doing this?"

To Donald Albury : Once again, you have offered a non-answer reply. Now if you would actually engage the discussion rather than parroting terms we can all read in Widipedia policy, it would be nice.

To EdJohnston : This omission is sure intentional; so why? If you find this a fulfilling endeavor then why not offer response to precise questions asked with a corresponding level of precision?

To Slp1 :if this does not communicate the relevancy of the question I presented you with just above, then you are not equipped to offer an answer to it.

To J Readings : Your response here leads me to believe that ... you have not taken time to make that opinion fit what I have actually written here. Which makes me wonder, why are you writing what you write?

An unpleasant atmosphere to edit in, as several editors have expressed in various fora.[5][6] [7], Whether the extent of the problem needs Arb Com intervention is another issue, however.

Addendum: Marvin Shilmer complains that, “remarkably”, I listed only Shilmer’s edits as being uncivil/failing to assume good faith. As stated above, I limited my evidence to posts to the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Since Cfrito has never posted to the RSN board, the omission of his/her edits is not so remarkable after all. Unfortunately, Shilmer’s comment about the issue provides a further (fairly minor) example of his tendency to see bad faith in the edits of other editors, and, what is worse, to allow his assumptions to influence his editing. On the other hand, I appreciate his presentation of evidence of apparent conduct unbecoming by Cfrito, which will no doubt be helpful to the arbitrators in making their decisions.

Addendum2:I am responding to a request for an update. I have not been involved with dispute after the RSN postings, nor have I been following subsequent events in detail. However, after a brief survey of various pages and edits I note that the content dispute appears to have been resolved [8], and that Cfrito has not edited for about a week.[9] With Seddon69, I wonder what the latter indicates. My own main concern was with user conduct and unhelpful incivility, failure to assume good faith and tendentious argumentative style etc. However, I find it hopeful that recent edits have avoided these pitfalls, suggesting that an actual arbitration case for this may not be required. --Slp1 (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution

I am not the initiator of this request, but I am listed as a party to it. As indicated above by editor Cfrito, this issue is resolved by a compromise. Apparently this was not made sufficiently clear. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the request by Newyorkbrad, this case was initiated by editor Cfrito. This editor articulated his reason for requesting arbitration by stating, “At issue is the inclusion of the names of the translators of this Bible edition.”

The issue Cfrito raised for arbitration has been resolved according to Cfrito’s amended statement on this very page where he writes, “While I still oppose the inclusion of these names on the source reliability issue, I have agreed to a compromise because it seems like it the list be well cautioned.” In addition to this remark, editor Cfrito and I also found common ground on this issue on the article’s talk page where he and I both expressed agreement on using the names of translators in the article in question. In response to editor Zahakiel’s remarks to a RfC on whether the names of translators should be presented as sources present them, I replied by stating “I agree” and Cfrito replied by stating “I also agree, according to Seddon69's stipulations/recommendations.” This agreement was to use the names of translators in the article but to make sure the presentation of information was strictly as sources present it. Or, to borrow Cfrito’s vernacular, to make sure the information is “well cautioned.”

Additional issues have been raised about editor conduct. Whether editors are “happy” with my conduct is left for others to decide. Though others are free to make whatever they will of Cfrito’s conduct toward me, Cfrito’s conduct toward me is not an issue to me except for his charges of plagiarism, and these have ceased for the time being. Hence, from my perspective, I see no outstanding issues in need of arbitration. Since Cfrito already expressed himself on this page that his issue is resolved by compromise, it is a curiosity why everyone keeps asking. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

I've notified parties, and other recent contributors, of Newyorkbrad's request for a clarity on whether dispute resolution has been successful. John Vandenberg (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Four net votes to accept noted. Will be opened around 20:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC) unless developments occur. Daniel (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/1/2)

Accept to look at editor conduct not make a content decision. This may be slightly premature but I feel we can help here. I encourage the RFC and other discussion to continue with more users giving input based on our content policies. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. The proper translation of scripture and the activities of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society are both areas where I have strong views. The matter is, therefore, best left to others. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. This may be a borderline case (I've certainly seen worse incivility than that cited here) but there does look to be a longrunning problem with user misbehaviour. Per Flonight, let the RFC continue, because this may help resolve content disputes while we tidy up the user situation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Concur with Sam Blacketer, it's "borderline" and "seen worse". This case has run on enough to show that normal approaches are not (yet) resolving it and reasonable attempts have been made to do so prior to seeking arbitration. Judging by the discussion, the content issue should be resolvable; it's probably not excessively difficult to construct a neutral statement respecting all significant views. Unfortunately there seem to be persistent issues impeding consensus, even though both parties may have "good points". Accept to look at the conduct of all parties, but without necessarily assuming bad faith on any part. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hold for a few days to see if any additional progress can be made via mediation or other dispute resolution methods. Although there have been few posts in the last couple of days, I gather some discussion elsewhere is still continuing, and it might be in the best interests of both editors to make a final effort to resolve the dispute amicably before entering into the arbitration process with results that could prove unsatisfactory to one or both of them. If and when the parties advise that other dispute resolution has failed, I would lean toward acceptance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we get an update from the parties, the mediator, or others as to whether progress is being made? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see the comment above by one party indicating that the dispute has been resolved, but the linked discussion does not make that clear as I see it. If there is a resolution, can we have a clear explanation to that effect. Otherwise, the case will probably be accepted and open soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and see as per Newyorkbrad. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, as no apparent progress is being made via mediation. Paul August ☎ 19:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcut

[[:|WP:RFAR#REQ]]

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

Request for clarification re Macedonia case

We are currently experiencing edit wars, blanking, vandalism, ethnic ranting and various other forms of disruptive editing on a variety of different content items relating to Kosovo, including articles, talk pages, images, templates, categories etc. I'd be grateful if an arbitrator could confirm that the general sanction concerning Balkans-related articles that was passed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia applies to all namespaces within the area of conflict, not just to the narrower category of "pages" (the wording used in the sanction). I presume it does but I'd like to have it on the record for clarity's sake. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

"Page" (as opposed to the narrower "article") applies to all namespaces. Kirill 13:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kirill, although the existence of any doubt emphasizes that warnings should be given before restrictions are imposed (which is good practice anyway). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Kiril and newyorkbrad said. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request to clarify/expand remedy from Ferrylodge case

Link to original case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

Notification of involved users:

Ferrylodge (talk · contribs) [10]
FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [11]
KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [12]

Statement by MastCell

In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge, Ferrylodge (talk · contribs) was identified as having "a long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion." He was placed under indefinite sanction: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing."

Recently Ferrylodge has taken what I consider to be a very disruptive tack on Talk:Abortion. I posted diffs and details here at WP:AE, because I believe that his behavior represented a continuation of his disruptive and tendentious approach to abortion-related articles sanctioned in the ArbCom case. My filing was reviewed by User:GRBerry, who raised the very sensible issue that the sanction applies to "articles" and likely not to associated talk pages.

Talk:Abortion and associated pages are contentious under the best of circumstances. Based on the diffs and evidence in my AE report, I believe that Ferrylodge is disrupting these talk pages with tendentious, circular arguments, presumptions of bad faith, extensive wikilawyering, and the like. I'm asking, therefore, that the sanction from his case be amended to read: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any page which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." This would include talk pages, WikiProjects, and the like, though presumably somewhat greater latitude would be provided on these pages than in article-space. I believe this extension is justified based on his lengthy history and ongoing behavior. MastCell ^Talk 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to GRBerry: No, there are no previous logged Blocks&Bans. Still, Ferrylodge has constantly been testing the limits of his sanctions. For example, here at WP:AE 2 admins (AGK and Rlevse) found his conduct disruptive - in fact, AGK banned him from Roe v. Wade - but he was let off the hook with yet another promise to reform, though his tactics had played a role in driving a very valuable contributor off Wikipedia. That pattern has repeated itself long enough. At some point, a critical mass of disruption is achieved here, and I think we're at that point. MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to Ferrylodge: I'm asking a very specific and straightforward question about an ArbCom case here. I'm not interested in defending myself against your attempts to distract, impugn, or muddy the waters. If you have a problem with my conduct, then please follow dispute resolution. MastCell ^Talk 02:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRBerry

In interpreting the case, I noted that the committee explicitly chose the passed wording over a prior version that said "article or other page". The other difference was that the prior version was "is banned" and the passed version is "uninvolved administrator may ban". I don't know which difference the committee was focusing on.

There has been a prior request for clarification on this issue, which no committee member responded to. It is logged at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Proposed decision#More clarification requested. Thatcher then said "The remedy would include any page related to abortion, including article talk pages, user talk pages (if an abortion-related discussion is carried on there), templates, policies, wikiprojects, AfDs, you name it. This has been established in past clarifications of other cases. The point of the remedy is to stop Ferrylodge from being disruptive, wherever it occurs. I personally would allow more freedom on talk pages, but there still will be an actionable level of disruption." I too am certainly going to allow more freedom in discussion venues (talk pages, XfDs, and the like).

I also note Kirill's comment earlier today on the Macedonia case: "'Page' (as opposed to the narrower 'article') applies to all namespaces. Kirill 13:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Since Thatcher (who has more WP:AE experience than I) and I are reading the tea leaves differently, clarification may well be in order even if expansion isn't.[reply]

There is currently nothing logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge#Log of blocks and bans. GRBerry 22:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ferrylodge

I’ve responded to Mastcell at the Arbitration Enforcement proceeding that he initiated, and at the pertinent article talk page.

I hope that any further decision or clarification by ArbCom in this matter will be prospective only (which may be Mastcell’s intent anyway). I also hope that my comments at the pertinent talk page will not be viewed in isolation, but rather ArbCom should be free to review the behavior of all involved people, including "trusted members of the community."

Mastcell does not object to any article edit that I made. He objects to my talk page comments. And Mastcell is not denying that those comments followed up on a false statement that he had inserted into the article text, with an accompanying footnote in which Mastcell cited a POV newspaper editorial that did not even support the false statement that he was inserting into the article text. As far as I know, Mastcell does not deny any of this, but rather he deems all of this context irrelevant. It is very relevant. Unlike Mastcell, I did not disrupt the article text at all, and no one accuses me of having done so.

At the corresponding article talk page, Mastcell made numerous false allegations and personal attacks against me. He falsely accused me of “quote-mining a primary source” and of using “ a series of quotes from primary sources to advance your opinion” and “massag[ing] the primary sources” and “violat[ing] WP:SYN to mine quotes from a primary source” and trying to “set aside WP:NOR.”

I respectfully submit to ArbCom that all of these wiki-lawyering accusations by Mastcell were blatantly false. I do not see how ArbCom could agree to Mastcell’s present request without examining whether those accusations by Mastcell were indeed blatantly false.

It is tendentious for an Admin to make a stream of false accusations at an article talk page, while also inserting false material and POV footnotes into the article text. You may disregard these assertions of mine because Mastcell is a “trusted member of the community.” However, I urge you to please look at the facts. The discussion at the article talk page became heated, and Mastcell was as much a part of the heat as myself, if not more so. I was responding to irresponsible edits by Mastcell (and one other editor in particular) in the article text, and responding to irresponsible accusations against me by Mastcell (and one other editor in particular) at the article talk page. I have tried my best to avoid causing what even the most biased person might consider disruption of any article text covered by the Arbcom decision, and no one accuses me of having done so.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Mastcell: The title of the request you made here at this page says that you are interested in "expanding" the remedy in my case. You're requesting that the language of the remedy be amended, and you've supplied ArbCom with more expansive language for them to adopt. So please don't pretend that you are merely asking a "specific and straightforward question" about the meaning of a previous remedy. You are seeking an amended and expanded remedy, and you are relying on a long list of "diffs and details." However, when I mention details that are not on your long list, you now accuse me of trying to play, distract, impugn, and muddy the waters. This is the kind of counterproductive wikilawyering that I referred to in my statement above, and I'm asking you politely to please ease up.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A few minutes ago, Mastcell made this reversion. I am totally flabbergasted. I do not understand it, see no justification for it, and feel compelled to mention it here. Please judge for yourselves.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zsero

Regardless of whether this specific decision was meant to include talk pages, having looked at the edits to which Mastcell objects, I see nothing disruptive in them. Now I haven't been at all involved in the history of that page, so I don't know how it might seem to someone who is involved, but the essence of Mastcell's complaint seems to be that in making a perfectly valid edit, Ferrylodge cynically assumed that someone would revert it, and got his response in first, so to speak. Mastcell seems to be claiming that this lack of AGF was inherently disruptive, and that Ferrylodge was under an obligation to pretend that he expected his edit to be accepted in good grace, simply because it was true, and only to respond once it was in fact reverted. The fact that his prediction seems to have been fulfilled would seem to me to vindicate him. And in light of his past treatment, especially the lynch mob back in September (my disgust at how he was treated caused me to withdraw from WP for several months), I think he's entitled to anticipate opposition to anything he does on that page, however valid, and to defend his edits as if they had already been challenged. At least that's how it appears to this utterly uninvolved editor (I only knew about this action because I had Ferrylodge's talk page on my watch list from when I made an edit to it way back when). -- Zsero (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

By convention and long practice, the term "articles" in Arbitration cases should be read as "pages" meaning article, talk, wikiproject, template, and any other page. I happen to be otherwise occupied and taking a break from WP:AE for a while, but I would have no problem applying and enforcing the ban you propose. Thatcher 22:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you notice that Kirill said the opposite this morning in a different request for clarification? (Diff in my statement.) GRBerry 22:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can probably find diffs that say the opposite, from various Arbitrators over the last 18 months. I can deal with either a broad interpretation or a narrow one, but having both is pretty annoying. If there were two alternative proposals for voting that differentiated between page and article that would be definitive, but I rather suspect it is due to imprecise drafting of the proposed decisions. I guess we either need a vote on this case or a general clarification of Arbitration policy. As far as I am concerned, narrowly limiting probation to articles invites just this sort of problem. Thatcher 22:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

References to "any article" are generally meant to include talkpages. I will try to make sure that any ambiguity on this score is avoided in future decisions. Not commenting on the other issues as yet. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for appeal: Octavian history

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

Wiki-user3728 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator, SPA)
Octavian history (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Octavian history

I am writing this for User:Octavian history [13] because his account was blocked by an admin who is abusing his powers. Here is what he wrote:

"Dear Wikipedia admins, I am a major contributor to Wikipedia and have been blocked for no reason. Wanted to ask for your help. As a scholar and historian I have tried very hard to improve Wikipedia and make it a better place.

User Gyrofrog (real name [redacted]) is an admin who is abusing his powers and has blocked my account (Octavian history) indefinitely for absolutely no reason. I can prove he has stalked my every move and has lead a terror campaign against me from the minute I started on wiki! He is absolutely obsessed with my every move and is a very unjust individual. He claims he blocked me because I am a "sock puppet", but that is absolutely not true. A few people do use this computer at the office and I did not know they can't write about the same subject. Gyro claims I have a million sock puppets, but that claim is 100% false. I have asked the two individuals at my office to never write about the same subject again, so it does not any confusion.

Wiki rule says "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users". I have never damaged Wikipedia and only helped construct over 1200 edits.

I have not done anything wrong, but have made over a 1200 constructive edits and created many new topics of great interest with factual citations. I started and convinced the scientific community on wiki to correct and change the name of Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species.

I have not only made over a thousand constructive edits, but I have also created dozens of important pages such as:

Beverly Hills Police Department

Abraham Lincoln's Cooper Union speech

Jack Clemmons

Marina Oswald Porter (Lee Harvey Oswald's wife, the assasin of President Kennedy)

Please restore my account and please tell me how to stop gyrofrog from harassing and stalking me. Thank you very much for your time!!!

Sincerely, Octavian history"--Wiki-user3728 (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Originally posted by User:Wiki-user3728 at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Octavian history on February 19, 2008. Original has since been oversighted -- see above redaction. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thatcher (Checkuser)

I have rechecked the findings at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Johnyajohn. It is clear that the following accounts have been operated from the same computer and the same internet connection: Octavian history (talk · contribs); Hasan075 (talk · contribs); Wallststockguy (talk · contribs); The-Scriptorium (talk · contribs); Equinoximus (talk · contribs); Monroebuffzz204 (talk · contribs); Sam838south (talk · contribs); Sarazip1 (talk · contribs). Other listed accounts are too old to check. Detailed records will be made available to the Arbitrators on request. Sadly, checkuser is not enabled with a time-travelling reverse web-cam, so claims of family/friends/etc editing will have to evaluated on behavioral as well as technical grounds. However, one particular series of edits on 19 January may shed light on this request.

19:32 Octavian history comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hajj Amin Elahi
19:43 Octavian history signs a comment on the AfD [14]
19:47 someone at this computer connects to Wikipedia through AOL and creates Hasan075 (talk · contribs)
19:49 Hasan075 votes in the AfD [15]
19:52 Hasan075 makes an edit to Kurdish music
21:33 Hasan075 is indefinitely blocked by Gyrofrog
21:44 Octavian history is blocked for 24 hours by Gyrofrog for abusing multiple accounts

Note that Wiki-user3728 (talk · contribs) and Holy-wiki (talk · contribs) are also coming from the same connection and computer. Thatcher 05:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

See evidence of large scale sock use at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Johnyajohn, on more than one occasion. I do not agree that Gyrofrog's block can be construed as "harassing" or "stalking". His role as an administrator is to prevent abuse of editing privileges. A request for checkuser review concluded there was disruptive sockpuppetry and the account was indeed a sockpuppet.

I also note that this request is itself not without problems. The bringer of this request, User:Wiki-user3728, who states "I am writing this for User:Octavian history because his account was blocked", is actually (and unsurprisingly), almost certainly not "writing for" someone, but is almost certainly Octavian History himself. As a second aside he seems to have used his login on Feb 19 to create a second account, used as an undisclosed new sockpuppet, namely Holy-wiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update, comment received: "Dear sir, I am not him, but a family member. If you look at his history you will notice he has not done a single vandalism or unconstructive edit. He has also fought against vandals. There are thousands of people who attack wiki every minute with vandalism. I truly can't believe that you would not side with someone who has tried hard to create and improve so many articles. Two of the puppets were friends and family members, not the 100 that have been named. Also, we did not know that friends and family cannot agree about the same subject. I can easily never work on any article that he does from now on if that helps" [16]. Submitted for RFCU review, again at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Johnyajohn. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Digwuren

Statement by Moreschi

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

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

Statement by User:Martintg

I see that Kirill is wishing to apply additional remedies from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles. What's the scope? I hardly think it necessary in Estonia related articles, there has hardly been any activity, let alone disputes, with only User:RJ CG popping his head in briefly after a long break before being blocked promptly for two weeks. As I said previously, Wikiproject Estonia has been chilled to the bone with most of the editors leaving the project, with no new articles created or expanded, except for football it seems. I suppose if you are going to turn the screws even tighter, how about also adding:

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

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

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

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

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

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

Proposed motions and voting

Motion:

The general restriction in the Digwuren case is replaced with the following:

1) Discretionary sanctions

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

2) Appeal of discretionary sanctions

Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

3) Other provisions

This shall not affect any sanctions already imposed under the old remedies. All sanctions imposed under these provisions are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

I remain convinced that this is the best solution, at least until the working group develops something more useful. Kirill 13:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Request for appeal: Everyking 3

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

Everyking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Everyking and discussion

When I made my previous appeal request a month ago, I was told to wait until February because at that point the arbitrators would have to look at whether or not to permanently lift my article parole, and that it would be more convenient for them to also review my other restrictions at the same time. I am unsure whether it is necessary to make a request about this; I was told by an arbitrator that the ArbCom intended to look at the matter regardless, but that it would still be helpful if I mentioned the appeal here. Everyking (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. Could you also please post a link to the prior decision(s) and restriction(s) that you would like to have lifted, since there has been a lot of turnover on the committee since the earlier cases. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed the ArbCom already knew this, but the case in question is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3. According to former arb Raul, remedies 5 and X from the original case and remedy 4 from the amended ruling are still in effect. As I have explained previously, I do not believe that the remedies as they are written provide for these restrictions to continue after Nov. 2007, but Raul did not agree with me, so I have to rely on the ArbCom to decide whether A) they have already expired, B) they are still in effect but should be lifted now, or C) they should remain in place indefinitely or until some specified later point in time. Additionally, the suspension of my parole on pop music articles in November 2007 will expire this month, so it is necessary for the ArbCom to decide whether to drop the parole permanently or reimpose it. Everyking (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, ArbCom will review and clarify as we previously stated we would address this in Feb. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyking, we are starting to review it. I'll try to keep you updated. Poke me if you don't hear something by the middle of next week, okay. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that the case be reviewed publicly, or at least semi-publicly, and that there be some kind of dialogue with me. Everyking (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putting your request here, with Newyorkbrad and me replying here, is the first step in making the review public. ;-) FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that you are apparently reviewing the case exclusively on your private mailing list. I would like for it to be done at least partially in the open, so I can see the reasoning and make points in my defense if necessary. Everyking (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's going to be open, it ought to be completely open, so the community can participate. I've got evidence I could present, for one thing. --Calton | Talk 15:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am all in favor of full openness. Everyking (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyking, my view is that almost all of the restrictions can be lifted at this time, but there have been reservations expressed about lifting the restriction on your interacting with Phil Sandifer (Snowspinner) based upon the nature and history of your interactions with this user in the past. Could you kindly comment on whether maintaining this restriction in effect would have a substantial negative effect upon you or other editors. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the restriction itself goes, it doesn't really bother me, because I have no intention of interacting with that user anyway. However, I fear that any restriction at all will have some negative effect on my participation in the project, in the sense that arbitration restrictions act as a kind of scarlet letter. I would suggest that this restriction could be replaced by a personal pledge on my part to not interact with him; alternatively, the ArbCom could perhaps make it clear that the restriction is being left only due to historical reasons, that I have done nothing that the ArbCom views as a violation of that restriction or an offense against that user in a long time and that people should not therefore consider me a user of any kind of lesser standing because of that restriction. A third possibility is that you might ask the other user in question whether he wishes it to remain in place; if he had no objection to lifting it, that could make the answer simple. Everyking (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point out that motion 2 is almost exactly the same as the status quo. The only (slight) difference is that the music parole is terminated (it is now merely suspended); the other things that would be terminated according to remedy 2 were already terminated in November. So a vote for motion 2 is a vote for no change. I also am confused that FT2 says that motion 1 lifts all restrictions, including the one regarding Phil, but the actual motion says that the restriction on interacting with Phil would remain in effect. I feel I presented three reasonable suggestions about what could replace that remedy while still addressing arbitrator concerns and I would hope they could be given some consideration. But at the same time, I don't want to confuse or complicate the issue further, considering the arbitrators are presently split between the two motions. Everyking (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2 has clarified the slight contradiction in his comment. With regard to the Phil Sandifer restriction, I tried to accommodate your concerns by noting that the continued restriction was based on past interactions, which was one of your points, and by specifically noting that you are eligible to post an RfA whenever you wish. I know this is not 100% of what you would have liked to see, but I tried to make a reasonable accommodation to your thoughts while posting a motion that addressed all competing concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think my concerns regarding that continuation of that aspect of the ruling would be largely addressed if the ArbCom stated that I should be considered a user in good standing. No one disputes that I'm eligible to post an RfA; the problem is that my arbitration restrictions cause people to consider me a user in poor standing and make it pointless for me to attempt going through the process. Everyking (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider you a user in good standing, irrespective of the outcome of the pending motions. However, I don't think the committee typically "evaluates" users (beyond imposing specific remedies where needed), and for better or worse, when I've proposed in workshops (before I was an arbitrator) a finding that a specific user remains in good standing, those proposals have never been accepted. If you want my personal opinion, any RfA by you will be controversial for a couple of reasons, regardless of the outcome of any motion that will be made, but I think that the controversy will have very little to do with whether there is an ongoing arbitration restriction against your talking about Snowspinner or not. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'll let it go, then. Everyking (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 July 2007 at 01:16 (UTC), the arbitration committee announced that I am a "user in good standing". Brad, are you implying that I might be the only person officially recognized in this manner? Flattering thought, though it may require some research.

— CharlotteWebb 16:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests is reliable, then yes, you are. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If motion 2 succeeds, I would like the arbitrators to explain to me what I can do to get these restrictions lifted in the future. I'm sure the arbitrators wouldn't keep a penalty on me unconditionally, regardless of what I do. Everyking (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I much prefer motion 1, I will leave this for others to comment on. I presume the answer will be something like "avoid unnecessary disputes for awhile longer," but I shouldn't be presumptuous. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One might presume that, but given the length of time that has already passed, and considering that most of you are currently voting to uphold the status quo, I find it difficult to believe that a bit more time is going to make any difference. The ArbCom is voting to continue branding me as a harasser even though no one is claiming I have done anything resembling "harassment" in over 18 months. I'm not even trying to get the ArbCom to acknowledge I didn't harass people; I'd just like it to acknowledge that I don't harass people now, and apparently even that minimum level of redress is a bridge too far. Everyking (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Calton

Is my understanding of Amended Remedy 4 -- that Everyking is prohibited from commenting on admin actions -- period/full stop -- correct, or am I thinking of a different, now-expired remedy? Or is it that Everyking is restricted from commenting only if certain specified conditions (such as location of the criticism or tone of criticism) are true? I'd like to be sure before commenting on specifics. --Calton | Talk 14:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're remembering the original formulation in the Workshop, which was refined in the final decision to allow commenting on the administrator's talk page, a Request for comment, or a Request for arbitration. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 08:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Acalamari

I personally believe that Everyking should have all remaining sanctions lifted. I've interacted a few times with Everyking in the past few months, and every time I have I've found him to be courteous and intelligent. I think any problems he's had in the past have been addressed, and that he's learned from them, so I see little reason for any sanctions on him to continue. I very much doubt that Everyking would work to have his sanctions removed and then do something to have them re-instated. Like Newyorkbrad, I too consider Everyking to be a user in good standing. Acalamari 17:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anonymous Dissident

I am unsure about whether I am too late to give my opinion on this matter; I would have given it sooner, had it not been for my short break. However, I would now like to express my trust in Everyking, and my feeling that all of his "vices", as it were, be lifted. I have interacted with Everyking in past, and I believe that these sancitions are no longer needed. Thanks, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

This case dates back to 2005; and had to be re-opened on three subsequent occasions for continuing issues between 2005 and July 2006. The issues kept trying to come back, it would seem. However, in the last 18 months, there has been comparative peace, and EveryKing now wants to ask, reasonably, if the issue (close to 2 years old) can be closed and all restrictions lifted.

Ordinarily I'd be inclined to agree, subject to checking with other arbitrators (with longer memories) whether matters have indeed been reasonable since then. That is the view of motion #1. However there was an incident in October 2007 which looks like it has left Kirill with concerns. The matter was resolved civilly, and Everyking was willing to offer a reasonable compromise after some discussion and initial heel-digging, and was unblocked. The agreement seems to have worked that time. But I can see why concerns may linger on conduct issues, and why perhaps motion 2 is proposed also.

The differences between the two are remedies 5 ("required to familiarize himself with the particulars of a situation before commenting on it") and harassment/enforcement, would persist under motion #2. Does Everyking still need the protection of these to prevent him (and the community) from such conduct issues in future, or without them, will he still keep himself well? Or does the general track record since 2006, and the at least bearable handling of the above incident, suggest they are no longer needed? That's the issue. Will opine when I've considered a bit more. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update - away the weekend. If I haven't voted by tomorrow noon UTC, assume I'm offline, and supportive of either as 1st or 2nd choices. If others are ready to close then count me away and do so. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2 - minor correction as per EK's comment above. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motions and voting

There are currently 15 active arbitrators, so a majority is 8.

Motion 1:

Any remaining restrictions previously imposed upon Everyking (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 or by subsequent motions are terminated, effective immediately, except that the restriction against Everyking's interacting with or commenting about Phil Sandifer (Snowspinner) remains in effect based on the previous history of interaction between those users. Everyking is urged to continue to bear in mind the guidance regarding best editing and commenting practices provided in the committee's decisions. The committee notes that Everyking is eligible to submit a request for adminship at any time. It would be up to the community to decide whether to reconfer administrator status.

Support:

I am hopeful that the restrictions on this editor are no longer necessary. See also discussion above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to me a reasonable move forward, to recognise Everyking's more productive behaviour but to retain a restriction about contacting Phil Sandifer as a backstop. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 02:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 13:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either is fine by me. --Deskana (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Support either; the request for views gave 2 views both supporting that sanctions are no longer needed. Hence marginally prefer this to #2. But looks like #2 has consensus.[reply]

Oppose:

No. See alternate motion. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Charles Matthews (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion 2:

1. Remedy 2 of EK3 (prohibition against posting on AN/I) is terminated.
2. Remedy 3 of EK3 (commenting on admin's actions) is terminated.
3. Everyking's music article "parole" is terminated.
4. Remedy 5 of EK3 is continued (and indeed, is a common sense requirement for all editors.)
5. Remedy X of EK3 (non-interaction and non-commenting on Snowspinner/Phil Sandifer) is continued.
6. The harassment ban and terms of enforcement in the July 2006 amendment to EK3 is continued.
7. Upon request by Everyking, these terms will be reviewed, but no more often than once per year, starting the date this motion passes.

Support:

jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as second choice if my motion fails. However, this vote should be counted as an "oppose" if both motions have a majority and the question is which one has more support. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Remedy 5 is common sense and therefore almost impossible to enforce. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 13:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either is fine by me. --Deskana (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Second choice.[reply]
This one's a little more direct. --bainer (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Support either; the request for views gave 2 views both supporting that sanctions are no longer needed. Hence some question whether the continuing restrictions are needed. But looks like this is the motion that is likely to have consensus.[reply]

Oppose:

Request to amend a prior case: Free Republic

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

SirFozzie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Statement by SirFozzie

It is expected that the article will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, that information contained in it will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The article may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review.

This remedy, passed on the Free Republic RfArb, unfortunately has lacked teeth, and the page has had to be protected for numerous edit wars between Eschoir (who has a conflict of interest after being involved in legal action initated by Free Republic) and several accounts, largely believed to be sock or meat puppets of community banned (and ArbCom endorsed Ban) User:BryanFromPalatine. See this edit for evidence submitted by :Lawrence Cohen as a report requested by CheckUser User:Lar. I'd like to formally request that the Arbitration Committee modify the above sanction in the following way.

Proposed sanction

It is expected that the article will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, that information contained in it will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The article may be reviewed on the motion of any uninvolved administrator. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review.

Thank you. SirFozzie (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

Proposed sanction 2.1

The standard article probation wording seems to have been developed after the Free Republic case. It would be:

Free Republic is placed on article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from Free Republic and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT.All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Log of blocks and bans.

Additionally, I support SirFozzie's request for better enforcement. Jehochman ^Talk 22:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lawrence Cohen

(In response to Jehochman 2.1):
Support. Lawrence § t/e 23:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other prior discussion

Esteemed SirFozzie: I certainly do not wish to appear disputatious, but when was it determined that I have a current COI with anybody? What evidence was taken and who heard it? It was formerly determined, and I will allow, that I had a COI, seven years ago. France had a COI with Germany in 1940, but I believe that dispute settled, too, and the French may edit the Merkel page to this day. Eschoir (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you picked the wrong World War as your analogy, Eschoir. The Germans had a COI with France in 1914, and most of the world thought that dispute was settled in 1918. But the Germans held a grudge for more than two decades. Your actions are speaking louder than your words. On the Talk page, Shibumi2's description of your editing agenda is right on the money. You're trying to take out everything good, and stuff in everything bad. I have a COI because I hate Freepers. I know better than to edit that article. You should too. Neutral Good (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8.1) Eschoir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was previously involved in serious external conflict with Free Republic.. Look familiar? SirFozzie (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I was referring to. There was a hearing a year ago, evidence taken, and a formal finding published, which you have reproduced here. That finding did not include finding a current COI, though it could have. Now, though nothing has changed since that finding, the sockpuppets want another bite at the apple, or rather, want to bypass the former finding through wave upon wave of suicide sockpuppets ready to be bannned for the cause keeping up a constant drumbeat of COI! COI! until it becomes a fait accompli, which practice has succeeded somewhat in coloring your opinion without hearing from me.Eschoir (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I made that decision all on my own.. Someone who has been in legal conflict with another organization isn't quite the best person to write about that person. It's like asking Greenpeace to write the article on the Exxon Valdez. I have noted many times that all the other accounts on the other side are likely to be related in many ways to BryanFromPalatine, even if it can't be substantiated. Wikipedia is not a Battleground, and that's what we have on our hands here. SirFozzie (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I point out that it wasn't a battleground from the time Freedomaintfree was banned till six months later when Shibumi2 restored a previous sock's version? Eschoir (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a period when you were editing the article all by yourself, and turned it into what Samurai Commuter accurately described as a "bitter little personal blog of a banned Freeper" and a "poison pen letter to Jim Robinson." It's hard to have a battleground when there's only one person present. As for your claim about "another bite of the apple," there is abundant new evidence that (A) you are incapable of overcoming your COI, and (B) you can't leave the article and related pages (such as MD4Bush Incident) alone as I have done without being given a proper incentive. I hate Freepers. That's why I never edited that article and never will. I admit that I have a COI. Since there is abundant new evidence to support additional action by ArbCom in this matter, through no one's fault but your own, ArbCom should take action. I believe that Freepers will keep on showing up here to challenge your involvement in that article. There will never be peace without ArbCom taking action against you. It is in the best interests of the Wikipedia project. Neutral Good (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to all the parties who have ably demonstrated to ArbCom why this is necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may have missed Neutral Good, he just announced a wikibreak Eschoir (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Freepers will keep on showing up here to challenge your involvement in that article. There will never be peace without ArbCom taking action against you. It is in the best interests of the Wikipedia project.

That sure reads like: You've got a really nice little night club here, Vinnie, I'd hate to see anythin' bad happen to it. Extortion is such a harsh word. Eschoir (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just seeing if ArbCom can or will take this up. I'm all for being WP:ROGUE and settling the matter myself if need be, but I wanted to give ArbCom the chance to look at their finding and see if it needs to be updated first. SirFozzie (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of this discussion took place prior to the new format, and is in a threaded style which is now not in use. Future comments in individual sections. Thanks! - FT2

Statement by Eschoir

(In response to Proposed Motion):
I support all except this quibble

editors who have or may reasonably be perceived as having a conflict of interest,

I may be wrong or just presumptuous, but COI is a term of art, with a particular definition meant to describe a factual state. Using language such as 'may reasonably be percieved as having a COI' would would equate opinion with fact. A 'reasonable' standard is less stringent than a 'preponderance' standard, and certainly not a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard. Recast the sentence thus: "Editors who are or may reasonably be perceived as being pregnant . . ." and see how absurd that standard is.

"All editors" means all editors. The gloss on SPAs and COIs is unnecessary, and potentially harmful, and I urge thoughtful reflection before adoption of such language.Eschoir (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Eschoir

All editors are strongly urged to do this. (Because it's a communal norm.)
Users who have a focus on that article specifically, and therefore may draw concern as to their neutrality from others (whether accurate or not), and also editors who actually in the real world do have a conflict of interest, and also editors who may not have a conflict of interest but where it is likely given their edits that a reasonable person may feel concern due to the perceptions arising from those edits, are being particularly reminded to do so, since they are considered more likely to run into such issues (due to prior disruption there) and therefore should take especial care to avoid doing so.

I have no problem with any of those statements. The issue is, can the community use them to deal with the issue. My feeling is they can. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motions and voting

Motion:

In light of continued disputes, remedy 4 adopted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic is amended by adding:

"Additionally, any uninvolved administrator may impose a reasonable editing restriction (for example, 1RR) or page ban upon any editor who repeatedly engages in disruptive or uncivil editing of Free Republic or any closely related page. Prior to imposing such a ban or restriction, a warning should be given on the affected user's talkpage. All bans and restrictions shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Log of blocks and bans."

All editors, particularly including single purpose accounts and editors who have or may reasonably be perceived as having a conflict of interest, are strongly urged to edit Free Republic and related articles only in conformity with all Wikipedia policies and with this committee's prior decision. If the enhanced administrator authority provided in this ruling does not improve the situation on this article after 30 days, a request for a more formal Arbitration Committee review may be submitted.

There are currently 15 active arbitrators, so a majority is 8.

Support:

Per discussion above and previously on this page as well as evidence and proposals submitted in the Waterboarding case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Has more likelihood of sufficient teeth, and allows for review if not. Modified one word: "closely related article" to "closely related page", noting this wording may include their talk pages and project pages also.[reply]
Hope this helps make the articles more in compliance with our core content policies. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More powers for administrators in this article are needed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 21:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 13:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recuse, which I guess works the same. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The motion is adopted. The Clerk will kindly post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 318: / Line 318: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/How-to_other_requests}}
 <!--Add new requests immediately below this comment, before any outstanding requests.-->
+=== Request for clarification re ''Macedonia'' case ===
+We are currently experiencing edit wars, blanking, vandalism, ethnic ranting and various other forms of disruptive editing on a variety of different content items relating to [[Kosovo]], including articles, talk pages, images, templates, categories etc. I'd be grateful if an arbitrator could confirm that the [[WP:SANCTION|general sanction]] concerning Balkans-related articles that was passed in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia]] applies to all namespaces within the area of conflict, not just to the narrower category of "pages" (the wording used in the sanction). I presume it does but I'd like to have it on the record for clarity's sake. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 20:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
+==== Statement by [[User:Username|other user]] ====
+<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->
+==== Clerk notes ====
+==== Arbitrator views and discussion ====
+:"Page" (as opposed to the narrower "article") applies to all namespaces. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] 13:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
+:I agree with Kirill, although the existence of any doubt emphasizes that warnings should be given before restrictions are imposed (which is good practice anyway). [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
+: As Kiril and newyorkbrad said. [[user:FT2|FT2]]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span></sup> 08:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
+----
 === Request to clarify/expand remedy from [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge case]] ===
@@ Line 690: / Line 704: @@
 ----
-=== Request for clarification re ''Macedonia'' case ===
-We are currently experiencing edit wars, blanking, vandalism, ethnic ranting and various other forms of disruptive editing on a variety of different content items relating to [[Kosovo]], including articles, talk pages, images, templates, categories etc. I'd be grateful if an arbitrator could confirm that the [[WP:SANCTION|general sanction]] concerning Balkans-related articles that was passed in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia]] applies to all namespaces within the area of conflict, not just to the narrower category of "pages" (the wording used in the sanction). I presume it does but I'd like to have it on the record for clarity's sake. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 20:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
-==== Statement by [[User:Username|other user]] ====
-<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->
-==== Clerk notes ====
-==== Arbitrator views and discussion ====
-:"Page" (as opposed to the narrower "article") applies to all namespaces. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] 13:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
-:I agree with Kirill, although the existence of any doubt emphasizes that warnings should be given before restrictions are imposed (which is good practice anyway). [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
-: As Kiril and newyorkbrad said. [[user:FT2|FT2]]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span></sup> 08:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 <!-- Interwiki links and categories are up at top of page -->