Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Arbitrator views and discussion: Opposed to removing the restrictions.
Line 515: Line 515:
<!-- for requests to amend a prior case only. Omit this and the above line for all other requests -->
<!-- for requests to amend a prior case only. Omit this and the above line for all other requests -->


----
=== [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking_3]] ===
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Avruch|<strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch</strong>]][[User talk:Avruch|<sup><strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T </strong></sup>]] '''at''' 01:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

With respect, [[User:Avruch|<strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch</strong>]][[User talk:Avruch|<sup><strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T </strong></sup>]] 01:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Respectfully, [[User:Avruch|<strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch</strong>]][[User talk:Avruch|<sup><strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T </strong></sup>]] 16:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

=====Follow up=====
It looks like three participating Arbitrators have expressed a willingness to revote the items of the motions separately, and three have not. What is the next step on this before it gets archived as stale? [[User:Avruch|<strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch</strong>]][[User talk:Avruch|<sup><strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T </strong></sup>]] 14:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Since no Arbitrators have commented in more than two weeks on this section, is it reasonable to assume that no action will be taken and it ought to be archived/proceed to some other step? [[User:Avruch|<strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch</strong>]][[User talk:Avruch|<sup><strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T </strong></sup>]] 02:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

==== Statement by Uninvolved User [[User:Jay*Jay|Jay*Jay]] ====
I do not recall ever having edited with [[user:Everyking|Everyking]] and so can make no comment on his actions or the ArbCom sanctions. However, I am greatly concerned by the way the appeal has been handled and want to strongly endorse [[user:Avruch|Avruch's]] request for a reconsideration. My concern is two-fold. Firstly, as Avruch has noted and the related [[WP:AN#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FEveryking_3|AN discussion]] shows, the imposition of a new restriction on making an appeal appears punitive. The philosophy underling sanctions (bans, blocks, etc) is supposed to be to protect the encyclopedia and to prevent disruption. I fail to see how this restriction pursues either aim, as no suggestion of disruption has been made, and the ArbCom believed the appeal was sufficiently warranted to debate and pass ''two'' separate ammednment motions, both of which reduce the sanctions on Everyking. The situation is akin to a court finding for the plaintiff and then ordering that the plaintiff pay costs for both parties. It is, frankly, bizarre.

My second concern relates to the contradiction which has also been noted elsewhere. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=193287985 This diff] includes the entire appeal case immediately prior to it being archived. I suggest that the summary of the motion presented on the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Everyking_3#Modified_by_open_motion|case page]] and the relating modification is in error, for the following reasons:
# Motions require a majority of 8 to pass, and motion 1 passes 8-2 with 1 abstention - there is no requirement, as I understand it, for a ''net'' vote of 8, merely a simple majority.
# Motion 2 is recorded as passing 11-1. However, this count is only correct if [[user:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad's]] vote is taken as an 'oppose'. His vote actually stated that it "should be counted as an "oppose" if both motions have a majority and the question is which one has more support" - showing that the passing of motion 1 was recognised.
# Four ArbCom members (Newyorkbrad, [[user:FT2|FT2]], [[user:Paul August|Paul August]], and [[user:Sam Blacketer|Sam Blacketer]]) expressly noted a preference for motion 1 over motion 2. Although only Newyorkbrad expressly noted that such a preference means opposition of motion 2 if motion 1 passes, a reasonable interpretation (in light of motion 1's passing) would be that motion 2 actually has 8 supports and 4 neutral/oppose votes.
Possible resolutions: There are several ways in which this contradiction can be resolved. They include:
* Passing only motion 1 as motion 2 has more opposition than does motion 1 - problematic, as it remains the case that both should pass.
* Asking [[user:Deskana|Deskana]], who expressly states that "either is fine", to form a preference, thus supporting only one motion and being neutral or opposing the other - thereby resolving which motion passes.
* Ask for reconsideration by some or all of [[user:Kirill_Lokshin|Kirill]], [[user:FloNight|FloNight]], and [[user:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]], each of whom also supported both motions, to express a preference for a single motion and neutrality or opposition towards the other - which would also resolve which motion passes.
* I do not see any additional clarity is gained by reconsideration by any of the four remaining ArbCom members who voted ([[user:UninvitedCompany|UnivitedCompany]], [[user:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]], [[user:thebainer|bainer]], and [[user:jpgordon|jpgordon]]), as each has indicated a clear preference (either in comment or by vote) for motion 2 over motion 1. However, there were (at the time of the appeal) three other active ArbCom members who have noted voted and who could. I am not sure that this would be helpful, as no vote by them could alter the fact that both motions received the support needed to pass.

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

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

'''Note on Comment from [[user:Thatcher|Thatcher]]:''' The problem is concisely illustrated when Thatcher [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=193441251&oldid=193437782 sighes] that the ''two motions were mutually incompatible, they could not both pass''. The problem, of course, is that they ''did'' both pass. The correctness or otherwise of any analysis of conditional votes is irrelevant. Analysis should '''''never''''' be required to interpret whether a binding decision was made, and such analysis cannot alter the unarguable fact that both motions did pass. The fact that the present analysis results in the application of a new restriction on Everyking simply makes the situation worse. The origin of the ambiguity lies in ArbCom passing contradictory motions, and only ArbCom can address the situation. [[User:Jay*Jay|Jay*Jay]] ([[User talk:Jay*Jay|talk]]) 08:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

====Statement by WJBscribe====
I emailed the following analysis to ArbCom yesterday:

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

In this case, two motions were supported by 8 or more Arbitrators, therefore logically both must pass. A majority of Arbitrators have supported lifting the following sanctions against Everyking through their support of motion #1:
# Remedy 5 of EK
# The harassment ban and terms of enforcement in the July 2006 amendment to EK3

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

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

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

====Comment by [[User:David.Mestel|David Mestel]]====

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

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

====Comment from [[User:AGK|AGK]]====
Whilst I rarely make comment on matters in cases out with those I am directly involved in, I feel compelled to make public my feelings on this matter. The underlying problems in this case are somewhat simple, and easily remediable:
*Confusion exists over what the Committee's consensus on this matter is
*Editors involved in the case, as well as uninvolved users, are of the opinion that the decision that has been posted differs from the consensus of the Committee as a whole, as measured as the vote held on the matter

Respectively, these issues can be addressed very simply:
*The Committee ''as a whole'' (rather than individual arbitrators) clarify its intended decision in this matter,
*If the intended decision differs from that which has recently been implemented, then the matter be re-opened and consensus re-gauged through the medium of a vote.

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

====Comment from [[User:Zocky|Zocky]]====
Clerks already write up a summary of each case and post it to the parties' pages. Maybe we could avoid these situations if they wrote the summary ''before'' closing the case, so that they have a chance to notice inconsistencies and ask arbitrators for additional information? [[User talk:Zocky|Zocky]] | [[User:Zocky/Picture Popups|picture popups]] 20:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
:In full-fledged cases, a clerk or an arbitrator prepares an "implementation note" at the bottom of the proposed decision page before the motion to close is completed, which allows any ambiguities or anomolies to be identified and addressed and serves exactly the purpose you suggest. That practice has not been used in the "requests for clarifications/motions in closed cases" section where the procedure and format is generally much simpler, but I agree that is a useful suggestion for more complicated situations like this one. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 12:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

*This request will be removed and archived in 24 hours unless new proposals are offered for voting. [[User talk:Thatcher|Thatcher]] 14:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
**It seems to me that if the arbitrators wanted this closed, they would have signalled that by now. Instead it appears we are waiting on the next phase to begin, and as a clerk I don't see how you can issue an ultimatum to the arbitrators that they do something at a certain time. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] ([[User talk:Everyking|talk]]) 04:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

:::I have emailed the Arbitrators twice about this request. I will not presume to guess ''why'' this request is stale, and has attracted no comment or proposals for voting in the last 18 days, but stale it is, and 10 days is the usual standard for archiving. [[User talk:Thatcher|Thatcher]] 06:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
::::NYB has said that he intends to propose new motions. Perhaps he has changed his mind, but surely we can at least give him long enough to tell us what he is (or isn't) going to do. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] ([[User talk:Everyking|talk]]) 06:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I do intend to offer new motions in this matter. I have some concerns about the timing of doing so, however, which I will address with Everyking in a response to a note he left on my talkpage. In the meantime, the Clerk has acted properly by suggesting that a temporarily stalled discussion be moved off the main RfAr page, and can go ahead so far as I am concerned. Please note that an arbitrator, for good cause, may make a motion to reopen or modify the decision in any closed case at any time, and that whether and when to do so is a matter of the arbitrator's judgment and discretion, not affected by whether a request for clarification is located on this page or in an archive or nowhere at all. When motions are posted, a link would be provided to any archived discussion and there would be an opportunity for further discussion. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 13:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

==== Arbitrators' views and discussion ====
*'''Comment''': There has been detailed discussion from time to time as to how we should decide which alternative proposal passes when multiple proposals on the same topic receive the required majority. In past instances, there have been a couple of times when it was not at all clear which of two alternatives has been adopted, which have been generally been resolved when one or two arbitrators struck their support from their second choices so that the outcome was clarified. Even now, it's not clear to me whether in a case with a required majority of 7, if proposal 1.1 has 8 supports and no opposes, and alternative proposal 1.2 has 9 supports and no opposes but three of the supports are labelled "second choice," which one is enacted. And if one allows for oppose votes also, then it gets even more complicated. A month or so ago, one of our most senior Clerks wrote a note in userspace about how we might address these situations (see, [[User:David.Mestel/ArbComvoting]]), which would eliminate these ambiguities, but at the time I judged the proposal to be a bit too complicated to recommend adoption. ''(paragraph)'' With respect to these particular motions, a further complication is that the arbitrators felt compelled either to vote for my "motion 1," as a whole, or Jpgordon's alternative motion 2, also as a whole. There were differences not only in the specific sanctions that I thought could be lifted but that Jpg thought should be kept in force, but also in other nuances of the wording (my motion was a narrative with admonitions and observations; Jpg's was just a list, and some arbs might not have cared for my verbosity or my dicta). It's a commonplace in the legal and political science literature that the order of voting and whether issues are voted on jointly and singly can sometimes decide the result of the voting. This has happened in several significant U.S. Supreme Court cases (I've actually been researching a real-world article on the subject; boring details on request; compare also [[Arrow's theorem]]). The fairest thing to do here, if the committee determines that there is a problem here that ought to receive further attention in the interests of fairness or the appearance of fairness, would be to vote on the termination or continuation of each of the sanctions as to which the two motions are in disagreement, individually. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 04:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. The statement 'support as second preference' means that I supported motion 2, but expressed a preference for motion 1 to be adopted if the two emerged with equal approval. In this case they did not have equal approval; motion 1 attracted opposition which was not present for motion 2. In that case the support for motion 2 still stands. The support for either motion was because both took the Everyking case forward by lifting some restrictions, but maintaining some in force; the reason for indicating a preference for motion 1 was because it did not expressly continue a provision which was common sense, would not normally need to be stated, and was difficult to enforce. However a preference for support is not a conditional oppose. Had I intended that meaning, I would have written it explicitly. [[User:Sam Blacketer|Sam Blacketer]] ([[User talk:Sam Blacketer|talk]]) 09:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. Though the motion was closed a little faster than I might have preferred (specifically because of this fuss), the result is consistent with ArbCom's methods in the past. When alternate proposals are put forward, and both pass, the one with the most support wins. In this case, it's even simpler. Open motions, in general, are considered passed as soon as they are supported by a majority of arbitrators. Motion 2 thus could have been considered passed and immediately enacted by the clerks after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=192622268 this vote] by Charles Matthews, which made the vote for the first motion 6-2-1 and the vote for the second motion 8-0. The clerks wisely waited, since six and five arbitrators, respectively, had not made their opinions known. In the ensuing three days, the second motion gained four more votes; the first gained two. The consensus of the committee was quite clear and unambiguous at that point; of the two alternate motions, the one with the most support carried. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]]</small></sup> 15:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
*:In answer to Avruch: my own interpretation of the meaning of people voting to support both motions is "Either one is exactly fine with me; I'll go along with the consensus of the Committee". This is based on the assumption that all were aware the two were alternates. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]]</small></sup> 18:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
*::I think it was pretty clear the two motions were alternates, especially given your comment in opposing my motion that you were offering your own, and the number of references either to "second choice" or "either is fine" or whatever. The fundamental problem may still be, as I observed above, that people were given the choice of voting for your proposal or mine or both or neither, rather than parsing the specifics of each one. Of course any arbitrator could have asked for a [[division of the question]] and no one did, but even so. <small> How can [[division of the question]] be a redlink? Where are our parliamentary law and procedure articles? </small> [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 18:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
*:::We have it at [[division (vote)]] :) --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]]&nbsp;([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 01:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
*::::No, no, "division (vote)" or "division of the assembly" refers to the voting process itself, in a legislature or parliamentary body. A request or motion for a "division of the question" (or "to divide the question") is a request that separate, divisible aspects or parts of a main motion be voted on separately. This is definitely going on my wiki-to-do list. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 04:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
*I think the confusion here is that, as David Mestel observes, these alternative wordings were labelled "1" and "2" and not "1" and "1.1", as is commonly the practice. Clearly none of us intended that these should be anything other than alternatives. I vote that Josh goes home and practices his numbers some more :) --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]]&nbsp;([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 01:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
**To exonerate Josh, I will plead guilty to being the person who introduced the complex numeration scheme "1", "2" into this discussion. Per my comment above, everyone understood these motions were alternatives and I don't believe this contributed in any significant way to the situation. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 04:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

I am happy to see it re-considered if that would help, since a decision must not only be considered, but must visibly be seen to be clear in its decision where possible. In editorial disputes that often means "go and re-check consensus on it", as in last month's rollback RFAR decline. I'm willing to take the same view here as well. [[user:FT2|FT2]]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span></sup> 19:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
:Well, wait a sec. Have any ''arbitrators'' expressed any concern that the result is incorrect or did not reflect our consensus? I mean, we're right here, we're paying attention to this page, it's been brought up on the mailing list, it was brought up on AN/I, and I haven't heard so much as a suggestion from anyone in ArbCom that this was not the appropriate outcome. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]]</small></sup> 00:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
::Given that there were two motions, each being considered in toto, the conclusion that motion 2 superseded motion 1 is certainly defensible. However, I can't be sure whether a majority of the continuing restrictions that your motion and mine disagreed on, might have been terminated if the points had been voted on item-by-item. If Everyking were able to come back in a reasonable time and raise the individual items again (and we would re-vote now knowing that it should be done differently), that would be okay. But the last point of your motion also locks him out of making another appeal for another full year, and given the ambiguity of the result on the current appeal, that does bother me. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 00:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes that bothers me too. [[User:Paul August|Paul August]] [[User_talk:Paul August|&#9742;]] 05:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
:::: There's a lesson here on "block voting" alternatives which are similar but not identical. I'm happy to do it again more "item by item", simply because although I think it was closed according to intent, it's in a way, better to revote it than to have uncertainty. [[user:FT2|FT2]]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span></sup> 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Revision as of 00:38, 24 March 2008

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

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

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

No arbitrator motions are currently open.


Current requests

WP:ARBMAC

Initiated by --Rjecina (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement [[1]]

Statement by Rjecina

I have recieved 3 month revert ban for reasons which I can't understand and even administrator which has given me ban can't explain. First reason given for ban has been revert warring which is not purely removal of vandalism but writing of POV stuff [2] . Latter administrator has accepted fact that POV statement is sneaked by another editor and that I am only guilty of overlooking additions in "heat of battle" [3] . I will add to that this has been "heat of battle" in which 3 users has tried to protect article from changes made by nationalistic SPA account. After administrator refusal to change decision I have asked comments on Arbitration enforcement and only answer has been "I see no reason to question Fut. Perf.'s discretion or judgement." It is interesting (for me POV) to notice that Fut. Perf. and administrator which has given this comments has given to user against which I have been "edit warring" 18 hours block for block-evading and making personal attacks during the block [4] and has blocked my checkuser demand for this SPA account [5] . Story has ended with my reverting ban of 3 months for "edit warring" and with other user 18 hours block for edit warring, block evading, making personal attacks and using multiple accounts in editing 1 article. Maybe my thinking is POV but this decision is overkill.

In the end I am having prosecutor and judge in 1 person without possibility to go to higher court. Because of my situation I think that we need change of WP:ARBMAC rules so that blocked or banned editors can ask for voting or something similar if they think that administrator ban is given against wikipedia rules or without evidence. Administrators discretion rights in this banning or blocking need to be changed ?

I am sure that we all understand my wish of ban lifting

Thanks for the attention. --Rjecina (talk) 22:43, 20 March 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)

  • Reject. I see no evidence here to suggest that we need to second-guess the administrators on the ground. Kirill 00:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. As with another case brought here, it is in my view inappropriate for the arbitrators to overturn enforcement which is within the legitimate bounds of discretion given by the case. There are other mechanisms to overturn a restriction which is contended to be unmerited. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Agree with Kirill and Sam. These editing restrictions can be reviewed through regular channels by other admins now or later if the situation warrants it. I see no compelling reason for us to review these restrictions at this time. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Paul August ☎ 00:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, as per above. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Merridew

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

Involved parties

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

Statement by White Cat

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

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

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

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

The conduct of Moby Dick can be summarized as:

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

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

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

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

To put it graphically:

All data: 1 January 2004 -

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012-
1 Jan - 30 Oct 31 Oct - Dec 31 1 Jan - 11 May May 12 - 30 Jun 1 Jul - 23 Jul 24 Jul - 11 Aug 12 Aug - 5 Oct 6 Oct - 6 Dec 7 - 22 Dec 23 - 31 Dec 1 - 25 Jan 26 - 30 Jan 31 Jan - 3 Feb 4 Feb - 15 Jun 16 Jun - 13 Aug 14 - 22 Aug 23 Aug - 12 Sep 13 Sep - 4 Nov 5 - 11 Nov 12 Nov - 18 Dec 19 - 31 Dec 1 - 11 Jan 13 Jan - 7 Mar 8 - 26 Mar 27 Mar 28 Mar - 8 Apr 9 - 10 Apr 11 - 19 Apr 20 - 22 Apr 23 Apr 24 - 25 Apr 26 Apr - 2 May 3 - 7 May 8 May - 21 Nov 22 Nov - 28 Dec 29 - 31 Dec 1 - 18 Jan 19 Jan - 10 Mar 11 - 18 Mar 19 - 31 Mar 1 - 30 Apr 1 - 5 May 6 May - 22 Oct 23 Oct - 9 Dec 10 - 31 Dec 1 Jan - 31 Dec 1 Jan - 31 Dec 1 Jan - 26 Mar 27 Mar - 7 May 8 - 15 May 16 May - 24 Jun 25 Jun - 31 Dec
Davenbelle (talk · contribs) Not registered Edits Edits Trey Stone & Davenbelle RFAR Stalks Stalks No more edits No more edits No more edits No more edits Blocked1 Blocked
Stalks My RFC RFAR 1
Note to Cool Cat (talk · contribs) Not registered Not registered Not registered Stalks No more edits
Moby Dick (talk · contribs) Not registered Not registered Edits Edits Stalks RFAR 2 Stalks 81 Days Stalks 13 days 86 days Edits 38 days Moby Dick block discussion Blocked
* Diyarbakir (talk · contribs) Not registered Not registered Not registered Stalks 57 Days 11 Days Stalks 41 days Stalks 12 days Stalks 2 days
Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) Not registered Not registered Not registered Not registered Edits 18 days Edits E&C RFAR 1 Edits Edits E&C RFAR 2 Edits RFCU & SSP & WP:AN Blocked WP:AN Blocked RFAR 3 Edits Edits Edits Edits SPI, RfAr/C(January 2011), Amend prior motion: JM & Clarification: JM
Barong (talk · contribs) Not registered Not registered Not registered Not registered Not registered Not registered Not registered Not registered Edits Blocked

Data broken down by year

1 January - 31 December 2004
1 Jan - 30 Oct 31 Oct - Dec 31
Davenbelle (talk · contribs) Not registered Edits
Note to Cool Cat (talk · contribs) Not registered
Moby Dick (talk · contribs) Not registered
Diyarbakir (talk · contribs) * Not registered
Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) Not registered
Barong (talk · contribs) Not registered
1 January - 31 December 2005
1 Jan - 11 May May 12 - 30 Jun 1 Jul - 23 Jul 24 Jul - 11 Aug 12 Aug - 5 Oct 6 Oct - 6 Dec 7 - 22 Dec 23 - 31 Dec
Davenbelle Edits Trey Stone & Davenbelle RFAR Stalks Stalks No more edits
Stalks My RFC RFAR 1
Note to Cool Cat Not registered
Moby Dick Not registered Edits
Diyarbakir * Not registered
Jack Merridew Not registered
Barong Not registered
1 January - 31 December 2006
1 - 25 Jan 26 - 30 Jan 31 Jan - 3 Feb 4 Feb - 15 Jun 16 Jun - 13 Aug 14 - 22 Aug 23 Aug - 12 Sep 13 Sep - 4 Nov 5 - 11 Nov 12 Nov - 18 Dec 19 - 31 Dec
Davenbelle No more edits
Note to Cool Cat Not registered Stalks No more edits
Moby Dick Edits Stalks RFAR 2 Stalks 81 Days Stalks 13 days
Diyarbakir * Not registered Stalks 57 Days
Jack Merridew Not registered
Barong Not registered
1 January - 31 December 2007
1 - 11 Jan 13 Jan - 7 Mar 8 - 26 Mar 27 Mar 28 Mar - 8 Apr 9 - 10 Apr 11 - 19 Apr 20 - 22 Apr 23 Apr 24 - 25 Apr 26 Apr - 2 May 3 - 7 May 8 May - 21 Nov 22 Nov - 28 Dec 29 - 31 Dec
Davenbelle No more edits
Note to Cool Cat
Moby Dick 86 days Edits 38 days Moby Dick block discussion Blocked
Diyarbakir * 11 Days Stalks 41 days Stalks 12 days Stalks 2 days
Jack Merridew Not registered Edits 18 days Edits E&C RFAR 1 Edits
Barong Not registered
1 January - 31 December 2008
1 - 18 Jan 19 Jan - 10 Mar 11 - 18 Mar 19 - 31 Mar 1 - 30 Apr 1 - 5 May 6 May - 22 Oct 23 Oct - 9 Dec 10 - 31 Dec
Davenbelle No more edits Blocked
Note to Cool Cat
Moby Dick Blocked
Diyarbakir *
Jack Merridew Edits E&C RFAR 2 Edits RFCU & SSP & WP:AN Blocked WP:AN Blocked RFAR 3 Edits
Barong Not registered
1 January - 31 December 2009 (incomplete)
1 Jan - 31 Dec
Davenbelle Blocked
Note to Cool Cat
Moby Dick
Diyarbakir *
Jack Merridew Edits
Barong Not registered
1 January - 31 December 2010 (incomplete)
1 Jan - 31 Dec
Davenbelle Blocked
Note to Cool Cat
Moby Dick
Diyarbakir *
Jack Merridew Edits
Barong Not registered
1 January 2011 -
1 Jan - 26 Mar 27 Mar - 7 May 8 - 15 May 16 May - 24 Jun 25 Jun -
Davenbelle Blocked Blocked
Note to Cool Cat
Moby Dick
Diyarbakir *
Jack Merridew Edits SPI, RfAr/C(January 2011), Amend prior motion: JM & Clarification: JM
Barong Not registered Edits Blocked
Responses by White Cat to other users have been moved to the talk page due to request to shorten statement length (discussion). Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to arbitrators

Statement by Jack Merridew

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

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

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

Wow
This, from yesterday, includes a link to this, from 2 and a half years ago, which gives this.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Away
Please note that I will be away for most of the coming week.
Anyone who is entertaining the notion that this is not about the Oh My Goddess episode articles needs to read this.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

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

Please be patient. sceptre. White Cat has suffered long and proven harassment in the past. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As in another recent case, I think the case for action would be clearer in the presence of indisputable evidence of actual harmful behavior. Otherwise the evidence is just strongly suggestive of a rather creepy kind of sock puppetry. It could be that Davenbelle has resolved his earlier behavior problems but still has a mild obsession with White Cat. We don't really have any evidence to suppose malicious intent or ongoing harm, though I recognise that this is freaking White Cat out. In the circumstances, speculation about identity is probably unhelpful. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sceptre

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

Comment by Black Kite

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

Comment by Eusebeus

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

Comment by User:Ned Scott

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

Comment by User:Colonel Warden

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

Comment by Jéské

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

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

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

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

Comment by Pixelface

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

Casliber suggested a request for checkuser of all involved parties in the recently closed Episodes and characters 2 case. Oddly, the other day Jack Merridew contacted Casliber[6], and also contacted me[7] out of the blue with a message from the "Work Assignments Committee". I believe this was a joke related to a proposal Casliber made in the workshop of that case. I don't know why Jack Merridew contacted me in particular. I did suggest Jack Merridew be listed as an involved party in the E&C2 case.

During the E&C2 case, I believe Jack Merridew followed me around to various AFDs and I believe that editor has engaged in wikistalking. I suppose one could make a request to amend the E&C2 case if Jack Merridew is following E&C2 parties around. Jack Merridew has recently been edit-warring [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] over an article I mentioned in my evidence in the E&C2 case, King Dedede. That article was recently protected by Black Kite, an involved party of the E&C2 case. While Jack Merridew was never officially listed as an involved party, the recent behavior by that editor could be seen as a violation of the remedy that said "the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute." --Pixelface (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Casliber

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

Comment by EconomicsGuy

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

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Reject; I see no evidence that any prior steps in either the dispute resolution process or the sockpuppet identification process have ocurred with regard to Jack. The Committee is not the first stop for handling vague suspicions of sockpuppetry. Kirill 22:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, per Kirill. I agree with Sceptre's suggestion on vague accusations, above. James F. (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept as per my discussion with White Cat. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. I agree that other simpler methods of remedying this complaint should be pursued. FloNight ♣♣♣ 16:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept to seek a resolution to this issue one way or the other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. I see a disputed allegation of sockpuppetry as primarily a matter for WP:SSP and only an arbitration issue if it results in divisive administrative actions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcut

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

Request for clarification/amendment: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

Statement by Moreschi

It is not clear to me whether the "area of conflict" for ARBAA2 is solely Armenian-Azeri articles, or whether it includes Azeri-Iranian/Iranian/Turkish articles, as I think it should, given it was these Perso-Turkic disputes that was partly responsible for kicking off the arbitration case in question. Going back over my little list I find a good number of Perso-Turkic arbcom cases: given this, I don't think it's unreasonable to extend, if necessary, the Armenia-Azeri discretionary sanctions to include Azeri-Iranian/Armenian-Turkish/etc. Just to clarify, I think the "area of conflict" for discretionary sanctions should be "articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area". This accords with {{Armenia-Azerbaijan enforcement}}, but there seems to be dispute over the matter, not to mention confusion. So, do the discretionary sanctions apply only to Armenia-Azeri articles, or are we permitted a broader scope? Moreschi (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The January motion essentially substituted in our more recent boilerplate for general discretionary sanctions; it made no change to the original scope of the discretionary sanctions, which was "articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts". For the original supervised editing sanction the more explicit wording "any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area" was used, though to me those are exactly the same, the latter merely being more precise. --bainer (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motions and voting

Request for appeal: /Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek

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

Appeal by White Cat

I'd like to appeal for the #Coolcat prohibited from mediating remedy. I was banned from acting as a mediator until I was officially appointed to the Mediation Committee. While I do want to help out as a mediator I do not necessarily want to be officially appointed.

I have not notified other involved parties because two of them have been indefinitely blocked and I do not want to bother the third one since we pretty much parted ways.

-- Cat chi? 12:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The community will not show any confidence in a person with such a remedy. Mediation Committee will no officially appoint such a person. The reality on the ground is this. -- Cat chi? 14:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Response to statement by Moreschi

I find that statement very offensive and provocative. I am not racist. The statement is in no way parallel to reality. I have not edited the said topics for months for example. If the assertion in the statement were accurate, should I not be banned indefinitely? -- Cat chi? 14:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to statement by arbitrator Newyorkbrad

All my past mediation attempts failed because Davenbelle and Fadix interfered with each and every one of them. The decision by arbcom back in 2005 omitted this detail.

Back then arbcom was also not able to rule on the Davenbelle stalking issue. Since then not a whole lot has changed. In the form of Jack Merridew, Davenbelle is still around and just like back then arbcom is unhelpful in resolving the dispute.

So because people have replaced Davenbelle/Fadix's role in trolling disagreements to full scale flame wars and because I have completely lost my faith in dispute resolution as of #Jack Merridew case on this very page, I have no intention of engaging in mediation or dispute resolution processes (RfC's, RFAr's, anything else I left out) of any kind from now on. All my sanctions from that first arbitration case has expired. There is this one leftover which I would be better off without. People have been slapping me with it to gain advantage in debates. Most peopled do not even know about it, but people who harass/stalk me definitely use such things.

The remedy in question was never enforced. I also cannot see how it could be enforced. Mediating isn't a disruptive activity. As you point out the remedy in question was passed 4-3 in other words with 1 net support vote. 1.1 version was 5-2 which is 3 net votes. 1.2 version had 7 net support votes. I was given the most severe remedy.

-- Cat chi? 16:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to statement by arbitrator bainer

Unfortunately it is not possible for me to give such an example. All my mediation attempts including the ones on topics I have no opinion on had interference by Davenbelle. In fact Davenbelle was present on nearly every article I edited, every discussion or vote I have participated in since my earliest days on Wikipedia. There had been exceptions but overwhelmingly there wasn't an instance where Davenbelle/Stereotek and to a degree Fadix wasn't involved.

Javier Solana was one of them, Nanjing Massacre another. I tried mediating both topics and I knew nothing about them. I still don't know much as I do not care.

I admit starting to learn how to mediate on Genocide/Massacre related articles was not the best of all ideas. I realized that back then and focused on Javier Solana. Davenbelle followed me to that one too.

I do not believe a successful mediation is possible under the conditions I operated. Issues requiring mediation are already tense and do not need a stalker coming in to attack the mediator. Disaster is guaranteed in such conditions. I do not believe the mediator should be blamed for the failure.

I would oppose such a topic mediation ban. Not that I would mediate such things but the presence of such a remedy would again be used limitlessly by trolls on unrelated issues such as RFAs. "No one wants an admin who is sanctioned by arbcom indefinitely" for example. Community won't trust a person under arbitration remedies. In other words community wont trust someone arbcom believes cannot be trusted that they pass remedy that wont expire. So cause and effect has entered an infinite loop here.

-- Cat chi? 14:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to the statement by Folantin

See, when you keep encountering the same people it starts to bother you...


Above is from Talk:List of attacks by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia [13]

Not surprising that a Armenia-Azerbaijan mob started showing up. User:Moreschi was also involved with this article in question.

I stated above: "people have replaced Davenbelle/Fadix's role". I stand corrected. This is why I will not even attempt to mediate.

I also thank Folantin for clearly establishing that I had no pov issues with the "Nanking massacre" article. Had Davenbelle, Stereotek and Fadix not collectively interfered who knows how would the mediation work out...

-- Cat chi? 16:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not talking about your presence here but your presence there... Someone who does not acknowledge governmental sources as a (biased or not) reliable source is unfit to talk about NPOV. -- Cat chi? 16:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you seem to misunderstand the basics behind NPOV. Turkish government as far as I know has a very consistent view on the issue in question which is adequately covered on the linked webpage. If it doesn't appeal to your perspective of history, too bad. Coverage on Wikipedia isn't about "truth" but about what is sourced. If you can challenge a source with another one, the wording can be adjusted accordingly. You presented no such source to date. Your reasons to exclude the said source seems to be your own personal point of view just as your presence here. -- Cat chi? 17:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply to statement by Black Kite

Me suspecting that someone is a sockpuppet has little to do with the remedy I am appealing for. I do believe my suspicion has a basis and I am quite certain to that end. It is an ongoing case never the less far from complete. -- Cat chi? 20:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Moreschi

I really don't recommend altering this. White Cat is still the same old Armenian-bashing, anti-Kurd POV-pusher he was back at the time of the arbitration case. At the very least mediators should pretend to some faint semblance of neutrality. White Cat doesn't come close to cutting the mustard. Moreschi (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to remain civil on this page Moreschi. --bainer (talk) 10:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. You chaps are seriously contemplating letting White Cat - White Cat - go back to mediating. And you're freaking out because I called him a POV-pusher, an entirely accurate description, as Folantin has nicely proved. Talk about screwball sense of priorities. Moreschi (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rlevse

I suggest not changing the ruling. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from AGK

I'd like to note that the remedy self-terminates when White Cat (née Cool Cat) is appointed to the Mediation Committee—not the Mediation Cabal. There's a few mentions of the MedCab in various statements and comments (I pick up on Sam's view, below, as an example). After all, one cannot be "appointed" to the Mediation Cabal, by its very nature. Just a comment, for technical accuracy purposes. AGK § 15:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Folantin

No thanks. White Cat's contributions to the 2005 Nanking massacre talk page are an object lesson in how NOT to mediate a contentious article. In White Cat's own words: "I tried mediating both topics and I knew nothing about them. I still don't know much as I do not care". That's the reason why it failed, not the interference of some stalker. White Cat thought that committing the fallacy of middle ground ("it's always six of one and half a dozen of the other") at enormous length was somehow equivalent to NPOV. As Bathrobe put it when, well into the mediation, White Cat asked who Koizumi was: "It is a bit rich that Cool Cat is trying to moderate this article when he doesn't even know who the current [Japanese] Prime Minister is. How can you decide what the facts are when you don't even know the basic ones"? His attempted "mediation" of the Armenian genocide article was even worse, given the obvious pro-Turkish bias of his general editing history.

An example of White Cat's "moderation" [14]: "You are obligated to recognise my authority and the authority of all moderators and they recognise yours, you are welcome to ignore me but any more Personal Attacks from you will not be tollerated. Such attacks will result in your destruction, I do not WANT your destruction. I am warning you so that you dont get destroyed. This is neither a threat nor an attack - just a freindly warning. I am a moderator and so are you. Everyone on wikipedia is a moderator. Not everyone is an Admin. I know mods who turn down admin requests as it is a lot of hard work so dont underestimate/dismiss us mods". --Folantin (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to White Cat

Your point being what? I've collaborated with Moreschi on several occasions trying to maintain NPOV on Armenian-Azeri-Turkish-Iranian pages. In fact, I only noticed this appeal when I was looking for clarification on the Armenia-Azerbaijan Arb regarding Iranian articles. You seem to have taken up semi-permanent residence on RFAR and ANI, so it's hardly surprising people keep stumbling across you. None of this has any bearing on the arguments I presented. --Folantin (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Must be a new definition of reliable source if we're allowed to use a Turkish tourist board website trying to attract punters by presenting a history of Armenian-Turkish relations so skewed that it doesn't mention the Seljuk invasions (erm, so how exactly did the Turks get to Armenia in the first place?), the Hamidian massacres or even the Armenian genocide. Mind you, it took forever to get you to stop linking blatant hate sites like TallArmenianTale. But that's beside the point. "This is why I will not even attempt to mediate". Good. So we're all agreed now. --Folantin (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

I would just point out that a meditor's main attribute is an ability to assume good faith, yet White Cat writes above "In the form of Jack Merridew, Davenbelle is still around..." despite nothing of the sort having been proved. Black Kite 20:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The remedy unusually has a built-in provision for its own termination: if White Cat can win the confidence of the community and be appointed to the Mediation cabal, the remedy is discharged. While noting that he prefers not to go down this route, I regard it as the best way of determining if he is a suitable user to act as mediator. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the remedies and especially the long-forgotten enforcement provision contained in the Davenbelle decision are weird. It also is not completely clear to me that remedy 1 (rather than 1.1) is the one that should have been deemed to have passed. That being said, it is apparent that when this case was decided a couple of years ago, the arbitrators were pretty much unanimously convinced that White Cat's talents lie in areas unrelated to mediating disputes and that his past attempts at mediation had worsened rather than helped solve problems. I would like to ask White Cat to briefly explain what has changed since the time of that decision such that he now wants to help mediate things again. I would also ask White Cat if he would agree that any attempts at informal mediation (because the chances that he will be appointed to the Mediation Committee are non-existent) would related to areas unrelated to the topics on which he has engaged in editorial disputes recently, such as Turkish/Kurdish and episodes-and-characters-related matters. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, choosing 1 to pass does seem odd. I too think the underlying opinion was clear. There were two common factors (subject-matter in which White Cat has an interest, and the involvement of certain editors) which probably contributed to the failure of those attempts at mediation, but the third common factor remains White Cat's involvement. The issue for you, White Cat, is to demonstrate which of these factors is really the problem; that is, should we continue to prevent you from acting as mediator altogether, or would the better remedy be to restrict you merely from mediating disputes to do with those certain editors or certain subject-matter? It would be good if you could point to some incidences of successful mediation that you had been involved in before this remedy was passed. --bainer (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wholly opposed to removing these restrictions. I do not feel that the encyclopedia project will be helped thereby. The restrictions were imposed because of real problems. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andries: appeal of topic ban on Sathya Sai Baba

Initiated by user:Andries. Andries (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2[reply]

I request a complete lift of my topic ban on Sathya Sai Baba. It has been more than a year now. My edits on the topic were described by the arbcom as generally responsible Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Workshop#Editing_by_Andries Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision#Editing_by_Andries and no diffs of disruptive or activist editing on the article Sathya Sai Baba were provided by the arbcom members in spite of my demand to several arb com members to back up the allegations against me with diffs. Please read the comment by user:Bishonen Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision#Proposals_to_ban_Andries_for_responsible_editing

If a complete lift of the topic ban is not granted then I request a partial lift e.g. only talk page or only on Sathya Sai Baba movement that contains now some (entertaining) original research POV comments. (I can give details on request) I was and still am the only serious contributor to that article and there were never serious problems with it. Please check the history to check of Sathya Sai Baba movement to see whether I am incompetent or a blatant POV pusher. [15]

Also, I purchased some of the sources as recommended by Jossi and the arbcom on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2, which is fine material on Sathya Sai Baba movement (and to a much lesser extent for Sathya Sai Baba).

This is not about anti-Sathya Sai Baba activism but about providing correct information. For example, the summary of the article Sathya Sai Baba contains as per 14 March a blunder diff that remained uncorrected as of 22 March. Sathya Sai Baba is generally not described by his followers as a godman (Hindu ascetic) and this is not supported by the listed references in Sathya Sai Baba and Godman (Hindu ascetic). Godman is a term used in Western Academics and only very rarely by followers of Sathya Sai Baba. I guess everybody agrees that nobody wants blunders to remain uncorrected in the summaries. Andries (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I want to repeat my opinion that the problem with the article was in part due to the nature of the subject and the sources available as the following quote illustrates.

The strict fact of his personal biography and manner of life are buried beneath layer upon layer of hagiography. (see esp. the works of Kasturi; also Gokak 1975). As far as I am aware no objective account of Sathya Sai Baba’s life has been written by anyone close to him. Indeed such an account may be an inherent impossibility: it unlikely that anyone who is allowed in to his inner circles would want to write in such a vein. [..]
Thus Sathya Sai Baba himself cannot be the actual subject of an account of his cult. For now, so supposedly ‘real’ Sathya Sai Baba’ can be anymore real than an imagined character in fiction.

— Lawrence A. Babb, Redemptive Encounters: Three Modern Styles in the Hindu Tradition, (Comparative Studies in Religion and Society, chapter Sathya Sai Baba’s miracles, published by Waveland press 2000 (original publisher is by Oxford University Press 1987) ISBN 577661532, page 160


I also hope that arbcom members can review the effect of complete topic banning (incl. talk page) of long time contributors with a good knowledge of the subject and access to sources before making similar decisions. I hope that the arbcom will not repeat such flawed decisions in other cases.


Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I take the view that this remedy, whether appropriate in the first place, is no longer needed. As noted in the original case, Andries was not an irresponsible editor of Sathya Sai Baba. His position as webmaster of a site critical of Sathya Sai Baba does give a conflict of interest on matters directly relating to that website but it is stretching a point to say that it gives a conflict of interest on the entire subject. Therefore I will be proposing to discharge the remedy. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motions and voting

Request to amend prior case: Bluemarine

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

Statement by Guy

Matt Sanchez has had a long and tiresome series of issues with his article, Matt Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This has resulted in multiple (at least a dozen) OTRS tickets and inevitable delays in fixing disputed and problematic content. It would, I think, help all concerned if we could have a variation to the arbitration ruling allowing Sanchez to make comments on the content of his article, on its talk page, provided civility and decorum are maintained. His behaviour in OTRS interactions I've seen has been entirely civil, so I think this is not ridiculously over-optimistic. It would also need a restriction on others to ensure that they, too, maintain civility, especially given the agenda apparent in some edits to the article. The exact request would be:

  1. That Matt Sanchez' account, user:Bluemarine, be unblocked for the sole purpose of noting requested changes and pointing out errors of fact on talk:Matt Sanchez and user talk:Bluemarine.
  2. That any violation of civility and decorum by user:Bluemarine, and any edit outside the prescribed bounds, will result in an immediate re-application of the block.
  3. That article probation at Matt Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) be rigorously enforced, and that any uninvolved admin per the usual definition) may topic ban any disruptive user from that article and its talk page and the talk page of user:Bluemarine. There will be zero tolerance of trolling or harassment of user:Bluemarine.

I note the article is already under probation, so this does not represent an extension of the scope or findings, only a note that they will be enforced in an attempt to allow an article subject to raise legitimate concerns about his article. Apologies for expanding this after it starts, but I thought I'd better clarify exactly what I'm asking. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel

I support Guy's suggestion fully. Daniel (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

  • Request extensively refactored. AGK § 00:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I have no problems with permitting Sanchez to comment, provided that he maintains the requisite level of decorum. If he proves unable to do that, the ban comes right back. Kirill 01:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motions and voting

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

Statement by Daniel

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

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

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

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

Reply to Sam

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to Brad

"I trust that he will be guided by the outcome of that discussion and not demand (for example) that he be allowed to keep created new userspace pages and requiring new MfD's if this MfD closes with a delete result" — if he does, I agree that this request is moot; however, given the text of his talk page over the last couple of days, I find this highly unlikely. Would you suggest immediately speedy deleting any futher userpage copies regardless of whether they apply to the letter of CSD G4 or not, leaving a warning, and then blocking if it reoccurs? I'd be happy to adopt that if you, as a respected community member (in this situation, as opposed to Committee member in a formal voting environment), feel that it is the best course of action. Daniel (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

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

Statement by Elonka

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

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

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

(followup) Since PHG continues to violate sanctions (today he re-created an article in his userspace that had been deleted at MfD, and he is continuing to argue against consensus at various talkpages), I am requesting another block. Details and diffs are available at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:PHG. --Elonka 23:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Abd

I became concerned, in following the MfD mentioned above, that the ArbComm decision was being misrepresented. I found it quite carefully crafted and precise. It did not generally condemn PHG's work, but noted problems with his sourcing. The FoF did not reject his work in toto, and it specifically asserted a continuation of an assumption of good faith, which would indicate that the sourcing problems found were not considered deliberate falsification of sources, but rather unintentional misrepresentation of a kind that, while less than cautious and careful, and certainly improper and worthy of reprimand, commonly happens when a writer has a POV. Combined with tendentious and uncivil argument, this justified a ban from editing the relevant articles, for a year, but participation in those articles, through Talk, was permitted and encouraged, provided it was civil.

In the MfD, however, I found many statements that exaggerated what had been decided, or even that implied the contrary of what had been decided. Thus, because much of this originally came from adverse parties in the Arbitration, it appeared to me that an original content dispute and conflict and resulting enmity between editors was being continued through the MfD. Rather than repeat all of this (I have no intention of blackening the name of any editor) I'll refer to the MfD, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PHG's archived articles. I placed a note above the editor comments flagging the involvement of editors in the prior arbitration, with no implication of impropriety; this resulted in a nascent edit war, terminated when another editor, who had, in my opinion, cross the line into edit warring and incivility, prudently self-reverted. (Though, without that, I would not have reverted, but rather would have followed WP:DR.) (This is described in an AN/I report, currently at WP:AN/I#Edit warring, general incivility at MFD - alert the media) My original notice was moved to Talk for the MfD. Other involved editors began commenting on my Talk page.[16].

It became apparent to me that there is a well of bad feelings about PHG and his contributions. I have no opinion about who was right and who was wrong (and both can be right and both can be wrong). However, the ArbComm decision did not do what was claimed about it, that I could see. I have no action to recommend to ArbComm, it seemed the decision was very clear and properly crafted; however, the decision only dealt with PHG, and there is another side to this, which came out in the MfD, where the most negative parts of the ArbComm ruling, which was precise and nuanced, were emphasized, and the positive aspects were ignored, such as the affirmation of ArbComm that good faith continued to be assumed, and the encouragement of PHG to continue to contribute, including to Talk with the history articles, where his userspace collection of materials might be of assistance. The deletion of the files (as has now been done) could be a hindrance to that contribution, though minor. There were other remedies suggested that would have addressed legitimate concerns without inhibiting PHG's legitimate work: for the concerns that he was using his space as a web host, the files could be blanked, leaving the working material accessible to him in History. For the concerns about the lost History, the files could have been restored from prior deletions or the like. The concern that the files would be a source of further incorrectly sourced edits was already covered by the ArbComm restriction to Talk; another editor would then have to take responsibility for the verification of any sources asserted and the appropriateness of the text. I would not, myself, ask for Deletion Review, since less troublesome remedies exist for PHG and I have no interest in the files, or the underlying dispute. My sole reason for making this statement is to call the attention of ArbComm to an abuse of an ArbComm ruling. If the ruling was, in fact, as negative about PHG as has been claimed, and I was simply out to lunch, I'd appreciate correction so that whatever disruption took place does not take place again. --Abd (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor update by Orderinchaos

The MfD closed delete two days ago. The rationale was: "Delete - Wikipedia:USER#Copies_of_other_pages is relevant here. User space is not a free pass to hide articles that were deleted.". Orderinchaos 21:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update by Daniel

After the MfD closed as delete, PHG proceeded to recreate User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance and, when that was deleted per CSD G4, created User:PHG/France-Japan relations (19th century). He has also since been blocked again for violating the remedies of the case in the mainspace; see this section. Daniel (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I'm not sure that a change is required. The MfD is ongoing and I will not prejudge it, but if it results in the userspace pages being deleted then recreation would be barred anyway. If it does not, then PHG can continue to attempt to bring his userspace pages in line with NPOV and other policies and then draw attention on talk pages. I do not see the disruption on talk pages which needs to be tackled by banning PHG from them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The case closed less than a week ago. I tried to be precise in the wording of the decision in recognizing that the primary (though not sole) issue with PHG's editing was the introduction of questionable mainspace content, so the remedy was focused primarily on that issue as well. If it proves necessary, I am not averse to expanding the remedy, but I would rather do so on the basis of more than a few days' experience in the immediate aftermath of the decision. For what it is worth, I do not see PHG's participation in the MfD as especially problematic, but I trust that he will be guided by the outcome of that discussion and not demand (for example) that he be allowed to keep created new userspace pages and requiring new MfD's if this MfD closes with a delete result. I am more troubled by his creating new articles on the borderline of the areas from which he is restricted from editing in mainspace and I hope he will be mindful of the overall intent of the committee's decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this stage, decline. The decision was not arbitrary. PHG has made good contributions in some areas. Unfortunately he is also highly tendentious in others and while some of his editing is good, a significant part is unusable (and he doesn't seem to recognize this fully). The remedy for article space is to remove the ability to disrupt completely. But the remedy for other spaces does not need to be so blunt. Provided he can contribute usefully, his actions on talk pages are not problematic beyond management. For example, they can be ignored if they prove unhelpful. PHG is also under a remedy that clarifies certain kinds of conduct are disruptive, if they involve failure to acknowledge consensus, which is unusually not stated as a principle but as a remedy whose repeated breach is actually actionable. If PHG were to act in a disruptive manner, for example by creating fork pages, or adding bulk text to talk pages without fair cause, or otherwise, then there are normal administrative tools and approaches able to handle this. (As with most Wikipedia dispute resolution we don't use them unless there is good cause.) When I blocked PHG recently, I reviewed his talk page contributions and found some were acceptable, some were problematic; there was a concern but not yet actionable. If time passes and PHG continues to try and raise topics on which the community has deemed his editing unhelpful then a final warning that he would be blocked if he continues, then warnings and Remedy 4 would be the way to go, via usual admin tools and WP:TE/WP:DISRUPT/WP:CONSENSUS (and possibly WP:GAME/WP:POINT/WP:AE if applicable). I decline therefore not because it's not a concern, but because actually the community already has all it needs to fairly handle it, if/when it were to become intolerable. For an example of PHG being notified on his conduct, see User talk:PHG#Block. We should allow a degree of patience, but that's not without limit. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the reasons behind article space restrictions (not banning) is a hope of a reform. Restricting users from talk pages would lead nowhere unless there is disruption of course. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The modification I proposed explicitly allows PHG to contribute to talk pages; see my reply to Sam in my section above. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes Daniel but you are talking about disruption above which I don't see. The remedies are based on FoFs and not assumptions. We can wait and see especially that the MfD is still open. What I hope is that everyone accepts the decision of the closing admin instead of wasting time around DRv, AN/I, etc because that would definitely lead to 'disruption' - whether directly or indirectly. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • With PHG having recreated an article after it was deleted at MfD, and trying to create another page with a different title (now also deleted), I feel that this is no longer an "assumption". PHG has also been reblocked for disrupting the mainspace as well. Daniel (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motions and voting


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

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

Statement by MastCell

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

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

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

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

Statement by Ferrylodge

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

The administrator who handled this matter at Arbitration Enforcement said: "Even had the ArbComm clarified that it was clearly intended to cover talk pages; I was probably not going to act. Using an article's talkpage to discuss article content is not inherently disruptive; that is the intended purpose of the talk page."[20]

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

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

Since Mastcell indicates[21] that he does not want to identify the specific diff that he thinks is most egregious (as I requested above), I doubt it would be helpful for me to say anything further at this time.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

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

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

See the proposed decision; here an "any page" remedy did not pass, whereas the alternative "article" formulation did, so in this case "article" means "article". --bainer (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "any page" formulation was an outright ban, whereas the "article" remedy which did pass merely enabled an uninvolved admin to ban him if necessary. I thought the thrust of the difference between the two proposals was the ban vs. the probation, rather than page v. article, but obviously I'm guessing. In any case, based on previous events, can I request that the remedy be formally amended to apply to any "page" related to abortion or pregnancy which Ferrylodge disrupts? MastCell Talk 19:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motions and voting

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=200419455"