Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

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

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

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

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

SevenOfDiamonds 2

Initiated by Kendrick7^talk at 01:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Kendrick7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• SevenOfDiamonds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

• [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds

Statement by Kendrick7

I hereby formally file a request that User:SevenOfDiamonds be unblocked with whatever editing restrictions the commitee deems necessary such that he may continue his contributions to the wikipedia in peace. I would ask the he also be unblocked so as to aid in his own defense. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:The Evil Spartan

Please stop this nonsense now. This has gone way beyond trolling on the part of SevenOfDiamonds. The user has sockpuppeted mercilessly, always pretended to play sorry afterwards, only to go on his mercilessly unending POV crusades. This charade is more apt for encyclopedia dramatica (spam-filtered!) than Wikipedia. Please put it out of its misery for good now. (Above statement is by no means directed at Kendrick). The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Merzbow

First, I should say that it is possible for SevenOfDiamonds (talk · contribs) to edit productively, with restrictions. If Arbs want to decide that path now rather than wait, then OK, but I still suggest he wait out more of his ban to demonstrate a willingness not to sock. This case should not be taken on the assumption that it's in doubt whether or not the earlier case was correctly decided. There is no doubt now, because since then SoD has admitted to being NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs).

The short version

A throwaway account called TenOfSpades (talk · contribs) admitted to being both SoD and NU. RFCU confirmed TenOfSpades is identical to an account called WheezyF (talk · contribs). Geography, timing, and behavior tell us WheezyF is almost certainly a missing-link SoD puppet. Read on for links and a more detailed explanation.

Timeline and editing show WheezyF is clearly SoD

WheezyF (talk · contribs) was created on 10/29/2007, a day after SoD was banned, and edited rap for several months - something NU did but SoD didn't. In other words, SoD immediately returned to editing, but to his old haunting ground, not directly back to Allegations of State Terrorism by the United States. On 2/12/2008, four months later, WheezyF began editing "Allegations..." again, clearly with SoD's PoV. Three hours later, N4GMiraflores (talk · contribs) was created, on a new NYC ISP. WheezyF essentially abandoned editing on 2/14, after dozens of SoD-like edits to "Allegations...", and was blocked as a sock later.

To make it very clear how neatly WheezyF fits between SoD's other accounts, here is a chronological list of such (leaving out a couple very minor ones). All are blocked as his puppets, currently. Of this list, SoD currently only denies WheezyF:

• Zer0faults (talk · contribs): 2006-05-01 - 2006-09-21
• NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs): 2006-09-18 - 2007-02-21
• Four month gap
• SixOfDiamonds (talk · contribs): 2007-06-12 - 2007-07-12
• SevenOfDiamonds (talk · contribs): 2007-07-13 - 2007-10-18
• WheezyF (talk · contribs): 2007-10-19 - 2008-02-14 (stray edit at 2-22)
• N4GMiraflores (talk · contribs): 2008-02-12 - 2008-04-07
• I Write Stuff (talk · contribs): 2008-03-22 - 2008-05-13

TenOfSpades, confirmed by RFCU to be WheezyF, admitted to being both NU and SoD

Most importantly, WheezyF was also confirmed by RFCU to be the same as TenOfSpades (talk · contribs), a throwaway account that claimed on Stone put to sky (talk · contribs)'s talk page to be the editor who created this list of articles. That list includes articles created by both NU and SoD. SoD, on his admitted accounts, would later spam similar lists, minus the NU articles, as evidence of his productivity (e.g., [2], [3]).

WheezyF is not an attempt by NU to frame SoD

SoD is going to try to convince you that WheezyF was a dastardly plot by the "real" NuclearUmpf to frame him. To believe that, you'll need to accept that NU, an editor he never interacted with, hated him so much that he nursed an account for four months and hundreds of edits for the sole purpose of throwing it away to attack SoD. You'll need to accept as a staggering coincidence the fact that WheezyF returned to "Allegations...", sealing the account's fate, three hours before N4G's creation. (And where has NU edited since, pray tell? Retired peacefully after framing SoD, assisted by whatever psychic vision told him SoD just returned as N4G?) Don't buy the grassy knoll theory.

Statement by User:Giovanni33

I think we should put aside all the conspiracy theories, and theories of conspiracy, as moot and not helpful. At this point it simply does not matter a great deal if SOD was originally NU or not. After a certain time things change so much that its no longer very relevant. Also, it may never be proven one way or the other. All we have are various speculative theories, involving considerable mental gymnastics. What matters is the future, and the editor's present and behavior behavior in light of what is best for the project. Based on these facts, it is reasonable to seek a possible unblock this user with conditions, assurances, and qualifications. He has proven himself a net positive to the project through content creation, and I've seen many positive contributions. See his cooperative statement and evidence of his valuable contributions:[4]At a minimum, 42 excellent articles created by this user refutes those who claim, "no positive contributions." These many contributions are not negated by the possibility that may have been NuclearUmf in the past, and made poor choices then that led to him being banned back then. In so far as this possibility is true, it's only relevant to the extent that he replicates the problematic behaviors. He has not. At the very least his current conduct under the new accounts should weigh a lot more than previous conduct, if the original problems are no longer evident; he may not be perfect but he is certainly a lot better than many other established editors who we are not sanctioning in any manner. Thus, it's also a matter of equal protection and fairness for me, as well as pragmatic reasons. Ironically the "disruption" stems from the fact of his 'illegal' status here: it's the de jure insistence that he remain blocked and what follows from that fact, against his de-facto unblocked status that is the source of disruption. It is therefore counter productive in light of his actual positive contributions, which he will continue to make, and wants to make, no matter what. Administrative decisions, if they are in the best interest of the project, must be flexible and look at the bottom line: what is best for the project? Even if we believe that he was the indef.banned user (Nuclear), the new accounts were only banned on the basis of asserting such a link.

Also, if he is telling the truth about his original blocking based on mistaken socket-puppet conclusions, then I certainly can relate to that, and give him credit for proving himself loyal to the project inspite and despite the rules. It's a classic and ultimate case of IAR being put into practice. That is an area that is problematic, but the best way to deal with it is to make an evaluation on pragmatic grounds (what IAR was meant for).

Lastly, I want to point out that SevenOfDiamonds was not indef.blocked/banned by his Arbcom case. In fact, arbcom, in their wisdom, did NOT proscribe any remedy. They simply concluded that given the standard of 'more likely than not," one account was the other. They did not feel a need to issue any restrictions, or take any punitive measures. It was up to any admin to either feel a block was then warranted, or for him to be left in peace to edit. At this time it doesn't matter if SOD was Nuclear or not, or how likely he was, etc. Conditions should be ratified so as to codify a situation that minimizing as much disruption as possible while maximizing the positive. Shouldn't that always be the goal? To me this means an unblock, perhaps with conditions, and for his opponents to reciprocate in abstaining from any uncivil interaction against him. If he wants to write articles, then who are we to stop him? To do so is to elevate form above substance, to raise the letter of the law above its spirit. Given the possibility that he should never have been banned in the first place, to continue to want him blocked no matter what strikes me as an irrational fetish of the rules for the sake of the rules.

I also do not want to minimize that fact that it is true he was circumventing a ban. However, it is important to notice he was doing it to prove a positive point, not a negative one, i.e. not to defy or disrespect arbcom or their authority, but to prove he was not disruptive as claimed, but a valuable contributor so he could make an appeal to them afterwards. Note he explains his reasons here, that he intended to request for the appeal afterwards, and does so now:[5]. This is not an act of a vandal/defiant rogue element that needs to be stomped out at all costs. Quite the contrary. Each case must be looked at concretely on its own merits so that does not give a green light to just anyone doing this. However ill-advised or risky, his ntentions seem clear here and I feel intentions do count, even if they may have been tactically flawed.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Jtrainor

Yeah, I'm gonna go with no on this one. As the socks blocked lately have shown, this user already has no respect for our policies as he continues to sock to evade his blocks and bans. We don't play "666 strikes here have another swing" around here. No matter what your intentions, if you are blocked and reg a new account and continue to edit, that is block evasion and against policy. The correct avenues to request an unblock are emailing Arbcom and using the unblock template. This user has flouted these and tried to sneak back in repeatedly. Why should they be given any sort of chance whatsoever? They've well exhausted their chances by now and should not be allowed back in. Jtrainor (talk) 05:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by William M. Connolley (talk)

This is an utter waste of time; why are we repeating [6]? Reject, per ES: Please put it out of its misery for good now. But I disagree with his lack of blame on K, who shows ill-judgement by spamming this page with yet another SoD appeal William M. Connolley (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:DHeyward

Please ban the timewasters. And see the other appeal. --DHeyward (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, it's this relentless push to "get their way" on all topics regardless of consensus, policy or common sense that makes this groupd of editors so problematic. Whether it's pushing outrageous POVs on the "U.S. is a terrorist" article or reversing bans of long term disruptors, the goal is volume over substance. --DHeyward (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Rocksanddirt

Totally unneeded request, a review request is posted below making this redundant. In addition, SoD could request review privately (via email to the committee), which might allow for a clean break from previous issues. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Horologium

Close this duplicative and unnecessary request, and continue the discussion at the original request below. However, as Merzbow has noted, some of the other socks in the drawer have tied SoD to NU, so I'm not sure that there is any reason to keep that one open either. This seems to be another in a recent series of unblock requests; there has been a sudden push to unban problem editors to give them (yet another) chance, and it remains to be seen if this is a wise idea. Problem editors usually remain problem editors, although there are exceptions. Horologium (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment from MONGO

Come on...this is getting to be pretty tiresome. But of course...I cherry picked evidence...SOD was never a sock of NU/ZFA...nah...I even invented the diffs out of mid air...those checkusers...what do they know? I made up all the evidence because I had absolutely nothing better to do...it was all just a ruse to GET an editor I didn't like. And...it worked!!! I agree that the first SOD case was a huge embarrassment for arbcom! I mean, the evidence presented above by Merzbow is also fabricated!...those diffs...they aren't real...I made those up too!--MONGO 03:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Seems redundant to the clarification below. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

• Every case or appeal in this page is formal. What makes the difference between this newly filed case and the appeal below? This is not really helping the case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Like FayssalF says. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• In the event that some material difference is discovered between this proposed case and the appeal, I would reject this case too. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Decline - we're already looking at this editor's standing and case. Whatever the outcome of that, this is probably redundant as a duplicate request. If there is anything significant in this case not in that one, then I'm not seeing it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Reject - no need for a new case for this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Intelligent design editors

Initiated by Sceptre ^(talk) at 01:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Guettarda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Filll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jim62sch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There may be several other parties; the ones listed are the ones that are seen the most.

• KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - added 02:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC), per concerns raised privately regarding the matter.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[7][8][9][10][11]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• I believe this matter to be divisive and urgent enough to bypass requests for user conduct; I also feel that the requests for user conduct system just generates unnecessary drama while producing nothing positive.

  With respect, Kirill, I don't believe it's "premature" because it's been a problem for some time, and a large one. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Sceptre

Apologies for the title, I can't think of a better one right now. As for the case, I'm uninvolved for all intents and purposes.

I'm filing this case because of the manner of the aforementioned editors and their general attitude to editors. I myself have noticed a pattern of incivility and (for lack of a better word) cantankerousness among several editors in the project; I've personally encountered Guettarda twice before (once about my bot, once about the article List of people and organizations associated with Dominionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), and I was pertubed by his attitude.

The attitude seems to be the same among all of the parties. While they are all respected and established users of the community, they should not be allowed to hold such an acidic attitude against people while claiming to protect the encyclopedia. While striving to protect the encyclopedia is fine, personally attacking or being immensely uncivil towards other editors in the process, especially established and respected users and even administrators, is simply not on.

Finally, as a subnote, there appears to be a large amount of cabalism between the editors, even more so than one would suspect from a WikiProject; they tend to support each other on everything. While not inherently wrong, it may need a look at.

To MastCell: I filed it to deal with both the group's incivility (which has gotten beyond a joke - you may be able to get away with personally attacking newbies, but not admins) and harmful cabalism (there has been canvassing for at least the DHMO RfA, as well as close-knit voting in other areas). Sceptre ^(talk) 11:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie

While I am deeply disappointed by the attitude and behavior of several of the ID Project editors (in the recent Moulton discussion, and the thread on Guettarda currently on AN/ANI), and fully support an editor conduct RfC on the users, singly and as a group, I'm not sure it's bad enough to bring straight here. SirFozzie (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

After reading the full "discussion" on the talk page of the FM/SV/JzG case, such as it was, I urge ArbCom to disregard my previous statement, and accept this case, the behavior of some of the would-be-named-as-parties on the page and on AN/ANI is absolutely atrocious, and an RfC would only serve to cause unnecessary drama. SirFozzie (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

After reading the barely-veiled personal attacks disgused as the defense of certain people's behavior below, the "Well, we're only acting cabalistic because because we are the "One True Defenders" and because we're only acting to (defeat anti-science POV/refuting fringe POV-pushers/defeating racist admins/defending against "threats"/insert others) (pick one or more)". It makes me wonder if the ID project is a necessary evil, or indeed necessary at all.

There's a difference between a project featuring editors with a constant interest, and a difference where the project becomes so uni minded that to the neutral editor, they go around like a steamroller, attempting to crush any dissent and discussion saying "We know better! How DARE you question our motives..." SirFozzie (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to Irpen's statement, SlimVirgin has her own ArbCom at the moment. Let's not tie that together with numerous, UNRELATED people (no project us!) who have good-faith concerns with the editorial and collegial behavior of numerous editors associated with the ID Wikiproject. SirFozzie (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Response to Amerique Statement

Normally, I'd agree with you that it would be a good merge, but I think the existing ArbCom has enough problems already, and adding yet ANOTHER case in all the ID editors and such would result in the ArbCom case reaching critical mass and becoming the Wikipedia equivalent of a nuclear bomb of drama.

Response to Filll, Odd nature, Guederttta etcetera

I see it's just about time for the latest "People who are on WR are bad. Throw rocks at them" meme to try to start spreading. Let's set the record straight, mmmkay?

When this RfArb was filed, I told Sceptre flat out that going straight to Arb could be counter productive [12] (post leads to WR). In fact I said flat out... while I think Sceptre has done himself no good by saying what he has here, I do think that it needs to be looked at, I just disagree with him that it should go straight to the ArbCom. I have not spoken with Moulton about an unblock. I have not locked horns with any ID WikiProject editor before this, except in neutral forums like AN/ANI, to the best of my knowledge.

So to assume I'm in a cabal with Sceptre, is rather foolish at best. It seems to me that when people are used to acting in a cabal-ish way (evidence such as below), they expect others to act in the same way as they do. I'd hope the average reader coming into this notes that in every single case, they have not attempted to defend their behavior, but to attack the people who have GOOD FAITH concerns about it. What's that old saw? "When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither are on your side, pound the table." It certainly sounds like a heck of a lot of table pounding from the "ID Cabal" SirFozzie (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Since Arbitrators want some evidence of current issues

Here are examples of misbehavior from editors involved in this ArbCom case.

User:Guettarda on the Cla68/SV ArbCom Talk page, attacking several editors within one post. [13]

Which after Sxeptomatic attempted to get an apology from Guettarda and is rebuffed, leads to this ANI Thread. (Please Note User:Odd nature, User:Jim62sch and User:Filll quickly show up and attack others with good faith concerns, which should not surprise anyone who's been reading this ArbCom proposal. [14]

These users have a habit of attacking anyone who opposes them as racistst, or Neo-Nazis, and threatetning other editors (see: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch for one particularly vile bit of behavior previously from User:Jim62sch, which led to ArbCom restrictions and sanctions.

For an older discussion where User:Guettarda attacks another editor with accusations of being a Neo-Nazi sympathizer. [15]. More recently, we have User:Orangemarlin calling another editor a "racist, Anti-Semetic pig" [16].

After this, Orangemarlin would have you believe that he backed off while he searched for support to back him up. However, he continued to make further violations of [[WP:NPA] [17], [18] (where he uses the exact term a racist, anti-semitic enabling pig. when describing another editor, and that he felt he did not have to abide by Wikipedia's policies on Civility and No Personal Attacks because Racism is uncivil, and, therefore, can be treated in any manner chosen. There is no reason to treat a racist, anti-semitic pig anything but uncivilly. [19].

Quite coincidentally, the person who Orangemarlin was attacking, is the same editor that User:Filll has admitted he sent a link to that editor's opposition section to multiple editors in a clear violation of Wikipedia's rules on that behavior.

If ArbCom wishes more, there sure is plenty more out there. This is just less then a half hour's work. SirFozzie (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Two RfC's open on this issue

Just a note, there are two RfC's open on this, one on the whole issue at User talk:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC, and the other being one "side" bringing a formal RfC against the other "side" at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sceptre, Sxeptomaniac, SirFozzie, B

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

Given that it looks like Fill has been involved in some fairly serious off wiki canvassing again dihydrogen monoxides RfA to ID editors, this should certainly be accepted. Not only is this against WP:CANVASS, it's a serious abuse of the MediaWiki interface to do that with. The committee should certainly look at making some very strong sanctions against Fill for this (that's if the community don't get in there first). Ryan Postlethwaite 01:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by involved dihydrogen monoxide

I am obviously involved here in that there have been accusations of canvassing against my RfA. I would thus prefer if this not be accepted until after the RfA has closed (it's scheduled to end 05:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)). At that point, I would suggest this be accepted. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to Amerique

I do not think a merge would be a good idea. Yes, there are some editors mutual to the two cases, but the issues here seem independent to that case (for instance, the canvassing). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Struck

I have struck my initial comments here, following Filll's apology. If this is accepted I would appreciate it after my RfA closes, but I do not wish to be involved. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by AndonicO

I'd just like to point out that the canvassing appears to be aimed at only me (possibly because I've opposed DHMO in the past?); no one else has admitted to having received an e-mail. · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on further review, around half of the ID wikiproject members are opposing DHMO... and as far as I can tell, none supported. Highly suspicious, it's nearly certain that off-wiki canvassing has occurred. · AndonicO ^Engage. 02:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to Jim62sch

I personally saw his RFA through here; I'm sure most people either saw that there, or had the page watched beforehand. DHMO is quite popular. Even if some people did link to the page, it was most likely not "support canvassing" (i.e. merely linking); Filll's e-mail itself would have been neutral, had it not linked directly to the oppose section (with "Have you seen" directly before it, implying I should read the opposes). Keep in mind that "oppose canvassing" is far worse than "support canvassing," since a handful of opposes can overturn an RFA. And no one is implying that "Per User:X" votes are bad; without them, RFAs would be quite redundant (RFA ≠ deletion discussion). · AndonicO ^Engage. 22:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to Filll

I tend to agree with Balloonman here; your e-mails were canvassing, and I'm not entirely convinced you linked to the oppose section by accident (though there is no evidence either way). · AndonicO ^Engage. 22:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Uninvolved Party Balloonman

Since AndonicO referenced an analysis I posted on Fillls page, It should probably be added here as well:

I'm glad to hear it won't happen again, and I'm perfectly fine with your apology. That being said, there are reasons why this looks bad:

	Scale		Message		Audience		Transparency
Friendly notice	Limited posting	AND	Neutral	AND	Nonpartisan	AND	Open
	↕		↕		↕		↕
Disruptive canvassing	Mass posting	OR	Biased	OR	Partisan	OR	Secret
Term	Excessive cross-posting		Campaigning		Votestacking		Stealth canvassing
Perception	Friendly---You state it was limited to 3, and I believe you. But we have no way of knowing this for sure because it was done in secret.		Disruptive---Based on what I know, the message wasn't neutral, it was intent on highlighting one side. A neutral message would be, "I just wanted to let you know about an ongoing RfA."		Disruptive---Since it was limited to 3, it is not unreasonable to believe that you expected those three to agree with you and thought none of them would reveal your email.		Disruptive---Since it was done via email, it was clearly done in the secret. Email is generally the best way to keep secret communications secret, unless somebody decides to share.

Thus, of the four criteria required to be considered a friendly notice as compared to canvassing, your email only meets one of those three and that's assuming we AGF and trust that there were only 3 people contacted. The other 3 criteria, were clear violations of WP:CANVASS. Again, I will AGF and I consider this an isolated incident, but this was a clear violation of Canvass.

Statement by Cla68

An RfC would be more appropriate first before bringing this here. For some background and as a starting point, please look at this RfC from last year. Although several of the editors listed as parties above certified or endorsed this RfC about another editor, most of the responses to the RfC noted that the evidence presented was actually more incriminating against them than against the target of the RfC. Cla68 (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone starts drafting an RfC on these guys, let me know because I'll help out as well as be able to co-certify it. Cla68 (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by krimpet✽

I echo the concerns of Sceptre and SirFozzie above. This group of editors have been cultivating an ascerbic and hostile atmosphere in certain sections of the 'pedia, and frequently resort to personal attacks, smearing, and a general attitude of superiority in the process. Worst, they've even used these tactics to enforce their desired negative slant on biographies of living persons - strongly against everything our policy stands for. And given this recent evidence, it seems they are indeed coordinating and canvassing their actions off-wiki as a team. Something seriously needs to be done, and I seriously doubt an RfC would do anything but turn into a huge flamewar - ArbCom needs to take a look. krimpet✽ 02:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Amerique

Why not merge this with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV? Some of the named parties are already active there. Amerique^dialectics 02:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:B

Please, for the love of the Intelligent Designer, don't merge this case in with the existing one. There are already pretty much four unrelated cases going on there right now.

That said, I'm trying to figure out exactly what this case is about. Is it just about one impolite comment by Guettarda? If so, that's silly. Is it about the methods of the ID project in general? If so, that's a more interesting topic, but needs to be narrowed down in some way. --B (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:Guettarda

Sceptre is filing an RFAR based on something that happened a year ago? OK...<shrug> I wish there was something here I could respond to. Quite frankly, I'm not sure what to make of it. Guettarda (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Al tally

What are you saying - that my oppose at DHMO's RFA is reason include me in an RFAR? Now I'm even more puzzled. Guettarda (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Ali'i

The frequency with which I visit RFA is usually a function of whether I am editing actively or not. When I do drop by, I usually scan the names, and if they look at all familiar (which they usually do not) I scan the support and oppose votes. When I do so, I look for two things - detailed comments, and comments by people I know well. Most of the time I wander off without expressing an opinion. In the case of Risker (which is recently enough for me to remember) Ryan Postlethwaite's vote caught my eye. I probably disagree with Ryan as often as I agree with him, but I definitely consider any opinion of his worth reading. I continued reading, and saw QuackGuru's name. I know him, so I read his comment. And I found it rather disturbing. So I voted. And discussed the matter a little further. Which produced a comment on my talk page. Which was followed by a vote from OM about a quarter of an hour later. Cabalism? I think something called "watchlists" is a far more plausible explanation. (For example, in this conversation OM appers out of nowhere and proceeds to inject fun into the conversation. I think it's safe to say that OM not only has my talk page on his watchlist, but that he actually reads it from time to time.)

I would like to add another incident to Ali'i's list:

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/White-winged Fairy-wren

Although I almost never contribute to FACs, when I do so, suddenly OM and JZ show up. Change? Collusion? Canvassing? Or something else?

I noticed this post on OM's talk page. So I thought I'd take a look at it. But when I got to the FAC page and started scanning it, I got distracted by a White-winged Fairy-wren. Since I am far more interested in birds than Alzheimer's, I went there instead, and I put about an hour of work into reviewing the article.

I regularly scan other editors' contribs to see if there's something I'm missing out on. I rather doubt I'm the only person on the project who does so. On Saturday I followed a comment on OM's talk page to FAC. I ended up commenting extensively on FAC. Once the editor who was handling the application started making changes based on my suggestions, I decided to see what he was up to, which led to a conversation across his and my talk pages, which OM joined. And then, horror of horrors, OM showed up on the same FAC page, and gave some input. And then, horror of horrors, JZ did the same thing. Canvassing! Or not. What would be the point of canvassing a FAC? So how did they get there? My guess (and that is only a guess) is that OM tried to figure out what prompted the conversation, which led him to the FAC. I then added a link to the White-winged Fairy-wren article after OM fixed something over there - which may have led JZ over there.

You know people, you interact with them, you end up editing the same articles. One can look for all sorts of nefarious explanations, but between talk pages, watchlists and Special:Contributions there's a far more parsimonious explanation. Conspiracy theories are always more fun, of course. And what's the guideline say again? Assume bad faith? Guettarda (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply to SirFozzie

That's a really funny one SirFozzie: when people are used to acting in a cabal-ish way ... they expect others to act in the same way as they do. Have you ever heard of the projection? Let's see. We have an RFAR that was advertised at a forum that seems to exist mainly to coordinate attacks and smears against Wikipedia editors. So yeah, it seems reasonable that, coming from a site that's all about "cabal-ish" behaviour, you'd might see any group that interacts as a "cabal". But seriously, it's a bit of a stretch to assume that everyone else behaves like you do.

I have no idea who you are. I don't recall ever coming across your username before I ventured over the Wikipedia Review because I heard I was being attacked there. But, amazingly, you managed to find yourself here. I suppose it's a terrible assumption of bad faith on my part to even think that there might be some connection between the thread at WR where Sceptre boasted about filing this RFAR and your appearance here, despite the fact that you posted in both places? I've never interacted with you before, but you're nothing but a random editor who's expressing good faith concerns? You just happen to watch RFAR and you just happened to comment on editors that you yourself say you know nothing of, and you just happen to comment on the matter at WR. And nothing but paranoid assumptions of cabalism would allow anyone to draw a line between those totally unrelated activities? If it wasn't for Moulton's prolonged smear campaign over at WR, would you even be aware of an ID WikiProject? Have you bothered to look at the activities of the editors involved? Could you tell me anything about my editing patterns without clicking on my contribs? Other than the Picard article, of course, where I did the terribly uncivil thing of coming up with text that was acceptable to all sides?

There's nothing here but guilt by association, and an editor who refuses to let go of a grudge. I argued the facts with Sceptre a year and a half, maybe two years ago, on an article. Presumably he came out of the debate feeling angry. And apparently he's held a grudge against me ever since...a grudge that, if it were a person, might be walking and talking by now. Filll did something that was rather dumb. He says it was a good faith mistake based on an incomplete understanding of policy. I see know reason to doubt him. Without Sceptre's longstanding dislike for me, and a relentless drumbeat by Moulton about an imaginary "ID cabal" (picked up an repeated over and over again by the rest of the WR crowd over here, to the point where uninvolved people believe there's such a thing), we wouldn't have a case. And while Ali'i may have meant well, if you set out to find a pattern and cherry pick the incidents that support your presuppositions, you'll probably find a pattern. It's called confirmation bias.

Have I been rude to some people here and there? Sure. We all have bad days. And over the course of four years of dealing with tendentious SPAs, I've been less than polite a couple times. But I've also spent days, weeks, months trying to explain things, in a polite, civil and logical manner, to people spouting the most ludicrous rubbish. And you know what - when I get frustrated with rubbish here, I don't go out and bad-mouth other editors in public fora. I don't go out and attack the project, or Jimbo, or the Arbcomm. I don't know how many times I have heard people criticise Wikipedia as unreliable, and I have taken the time to explain what Wikipedia is, how to use it and when to trust it. I've encouraged my students to use it as a stepping off point. And yet I find myself accused of all sorts of misdeeds in a filing coordinated by a group that exists only to disparage Wikipedia and its editors. Such is life, I suppose. Guettarda (talk) 04:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply to The undertow

In his statement, The undertow says that we "are WP:Intelligent Design - yet NONE of the participants believe in ID". That's a fascinating observation. And it's a perfect microcosm of the circular reasoning and cherry picking that has characterised this RFAR.

There are 21 participants in the ID WikiProject, 18 of whom are not named here. Several of them quite sympathetic to ID. (I would hesitate to describe anyone as "believing in ID", since it isn't a belief system.) The rest of his statement is predicated on his misconception.

It has been pointed out by several people here that this Request is very short on evidence. When you hear something repeated over and over, perception becomes reality. WR is an echo chamber, where the same smears get repeated over and over. Moulton has been active for a while attacking the people that he believes wronged him. After a while, his allegations become reality to WR participants. Moulton's assertion that none of the "ID WikiClique" believe in ID becomes the undertow's statement that no one in the ID WikiProject believe in ID.

Finally, I'd like to address one more point made by the undertow. He said: I WANT to see a Black Panther editing the article because ... this member is going to know more about it than I do. When it comes down to it, if you can't document your personal experience, it's worthless. Moulton knows that Picard isn't a supporter of ID (and that trumps the New York Times any day of the week). Chip knows that White Pride isn't racist (and that trumps the ADL and the SPLC). Unfortunately, Wikipedia is based on verifiable information based on reliable sources. We don't need people whose idea of editing is to be resolutely unswayed by the facts. The editors that Moulton and his supporters here so badly want to smear were able to bring the intelligent design article up to FA status. It's a major achievement to bring a controversial topic up to FA status. The FAC discussion was open. The community had input (including pro-ID editors). There were a few minor issues, and they were dealt with.

I am fascinated by ID. I've read Behe, Johnson, Wells, Dembski...even Luskin. I've seen Dembski speak, both to "friendly" and "unfriendly" audiences. I've also read Eugenie Scott, Pennock, Ruse, Numbers, Perakh, Edis, Sober and Forrest. I've seen Scott, Pennock and Ruse speak. I've read everything I can get my hands on, from all sides. Most of the time I can do a better job of articulating the pro-ID side than can ID supporters. My opinion about ID is irrelevant. My ability to present reliably sourced material in a manner that's consistent with our NPOV policy is what matters. You know, those pesky little things called "facts", supported by reliable sources, presented in a balanced manner. Guettarda (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:Al tally

No. It's ongoing today, a great example of which can be seen on DHMO's RFA. Al Tally ^talk 02:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please add my comment to an RfC

I happened to see this quite by chance, and am very unlikely to see any related discussion in the future, so I hope someone will quote me as appropriate in future discussions. I have made thousands of edits on Wikipedia in over two years, but I have never encountered anyone nearly as uncivil and apparently deliberately provocative as Guettarda. I believe this was January 2007 on the Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) article, if anyone wants to look it up. I endured repeated attacks, false statements about me, quotations of me that I didn't make, and wildly emotional harangues, but I remained perfectly calm in tone for a long time. I held out until the deliberate, untrue statements about me (without the slightest provocation), including quoted phrases which I never said, seemed too bizarre, and he finally goaded me into pointing out that he "lied." Of course this set him off an yet another round of screaming and uncivil behavior. I got emails from others saying they had the same experience and quit. I have occasionally looked at his talk page since then, and of course others have had severe problems with him (though he often deleted such comments). It's simply unbelievable to me that he is an administrator. He should certainly be permanently banned from Wikipedia. It would be impossible to guess how many editors have been driven away by being treated in such a hostile manner.

The closest competition for incivility would have to be some of the other editors who work together to oppose neutrality on Intelligent design-related articles. I myself do not believe in intelligent design and believe in the mainstream scientific consensus on evolutionary theory. This group of editors seems to think that presenting the facts is unacceptable; they prefer to vilify intelligent design and do a hatchet job on its advocates (biographies of living persons), which in my view tends to undermine the credibility of these articles. Any intelligent reader can easily see a hatchet job. Why not just present the facts and let the fringe theories and theorists look bad of their own accord? When these editors subject these theories and their advocates to exaggerated, derisive diatribe, it alienates intelligent readers. One editor called it "a joke and a disgrace to Wikipedia."

These editors enforce their versions of the articles by working together to oppose reasonable attempts to make the articles NPOV, seeming to be uninterested in other viewpoints, or in attempts to point out statements in the articles that are not supported by the citations, etc. These editors work together using power plays to enforce the over-the-top versions they like of these articles. It's the best example I know of what may well be Wikipedia's main weakness - articles at the fringes of Wikipedia are sometimes so far from NPOV that they are absurd and disgraceful, because not enough neutral people care enough about them to make them decent. -Exucmember (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Shalom

I'm not sure what ArbCom is being asked to do here. Looking at the general conduct of editors in a particular WikiProject seems too broad in scope to be useful. I think a user conduct RFC should happen first. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment from User:Rocksanddirt

While I'm not sure how I feel about an arb hearing for this, as it will be near impossible to get useful remedies for the alleged problems, I absoultely feel that it should not be part of the Omnibus Adminstrator and Longtime Editor Reformation and Civility Patrol Act of 2008 hearing. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel

Should this case be accepted, I intend to present detailed evidence relating to inappropriate activities by some of the parties named, especially behaviour relating to canvassing, meatpuppetry, and misrepresenting consensus.

However, could I ask that the Committee please consider delaying acceptance of this case (should it be accepted) until after the closure of Dihydrogen Monoxide's RfA, given that I believe it would be unfair on him to have both the RfA and the RfAr running side-by-side?

Out of courtesy for all involved, I will note now that I have the intention of submitting evidence which I cannot publish on Wikipedia due to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Private correspondence, should this case be accepted. I will forward the relevant private correspondence to the Committee's mailing list. I hope that those who were involved in the private evidence will be given a chance by the Committee to respond to it, through email communication with arbcom-l. However, I will leave such a decision as to whether to offer the right of reply to the Arbitrators themselves (should this case be accepted).

It is my opinion that the most recent events merit a case alone, especially given the gravity of the evidence that will be submitted should the case be accepted. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:Lar

What Rocksanddirt said. Please do not, if you accept this, combine it with any other cases. I feel I may need to make a template I can just paste into RfArs with this comment!... if it were possible to unmake the omelette, I'd plead that you un-combine JzG's case as well... nothing good has come of that combination that I can see (unless you define "confusing the issue and making the case harder to follow" as good). ++Lar: t/c 10:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:Restepc

I have had little involvement in the ID area of wikipedia, and it's not something I intend to be involved with in the future, but when I did I was surprised by the general lack of civility of some of the people listed, especially incredible rudeness from Orangemarlin. Also encountered behaviour that appeared coordinated between orangemarlin and fill. Restepc (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved NonvocalScream (talk)

Just on my observations around the project... I'm not sure if a user conduct RFC would be useful, but it may be useful if done as a group. Singly doing it will take time and resources, volunteer hours. Group RFC or RFAR may be a matter of efficiency here.

In the event RFC is not desirable, I encourage the committee to accept this case. I have to note that I intend to submit evidence to the committee privately and I hope that parties will be given a chance to respond to the evidence, however, I leave that up to the committee. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Risker

I can understand the urge to pursue an alternate level of dispute resolution in this case; as has been pointed out, it would be potentially useful for evidence collection and for the opportunity to clarify community opinion and feedback. On the other hand, our user RfC process is designed to address specific incidents involving individual editors, not longterm patterns of behaviour by a group of editors. As well, there are potentially content issues related to this current dispute, and content issues are very difficult to address in a user-oriented RfC. (I acknowledge they may be difficult to address in an arbitration case as well). Could the committee clarify if they will consider a group RfC that touches on article content as well as behaviour to be a suitable way of proceeding at this point? Risker (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I note Thatcher's proposal on WT:RFAR here[20], and this may be a reasonable jumping-off point to an RfC. As I've not had any significant dealings with either the editors or the articles involved, I'm not in a position to develop an RfC, but would encourage those who have expressed concern in this RfAR to do so. Risker (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Simple answer - "yes, sure". Provided one understands its aim and limitations as a tool used to get wider insight and slightly dissect a problem, RFC can be a valuable tool. (Hence its name, "request for comment".) Be very careful how you frame it though; my offer to review any draft stands, if you (or anyone else) wants. If it's not overused, then RFC on a specific, defined situation, of the form "lets see what perspectives exist and how they get commented on", has the potential to be a very sensible way to find out more about how the wider community looks at specific issues and situations. It's definitely more a kind of fact-finding method than a dispute solving one, though, which is important. Its main use is to shed light on a problematic dispute, a confusing mess or "train wreck", or a conduct dispute where some users may be "smokescreening" a bit or the history isn't that clear, so it gets a bit easier to assess "where to from here" and helps to inform people who want as summary of the issue rather than reading the entire raw history. Basically it helps loosen the Gordian Knot and make it a bit easier to figure out whats going on from a communal perspective. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from AGK

Query: how and where has the Community attempted to resolve the conduct issues with Intelligent Design editors? Has there been any attempts to actually bring in measures to keep conduct in check from the Community? Or are we just going to pass this straight onto the Committee, without trying to solve it ourselves? Anthøny 14:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: it appears the general response to this query is, "none". I originally had a number of recommendations and thoughts to make on this matter, but arbitrator FT2 has gotten there first. :) For my thoughts on the matter, please see his comments below. Anthøny 16:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Durova

If there was one lesson to be learned from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman, it's that an "experimental" RFAR which bypasses normal dispute resolution is a very bad idea. Where is the urgency here? There's been no wheel war; Wikipedia's main page hasn't been defaced. Let the matter go through RfC or mediation. Durova^Charge! 16:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Sxeptomaniac

I'm currently neutral on whether the arbitration committee should accept the case now or urge an RfC first. However, I believe it will have to go to arbitration at some point in the near future.

My recent issue as seen at AN/I [21] is just the latest of numerous problems with these editors. I consider the most serious of their recent problems their behavior at Rosalind Picard, which also spawned an AN/I thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive412#BLP tag-teaming by User:Orangemarlin.

The tendentious, warlike, and generally uncivil behavior demonstrated by this group through much of Talk:Rosalind Picard/archive1 and also seen elsewhere, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Moulton#Inside view by User:Filll is the problem. In my experience, those who oppose this group on any issue, no matter how minor, are inevitable labeled supporters of Intelligent design (as I have been on multiple occasions, though I'm not) or "Anti-science" [22], regardless of evidence contradicting such claims.

If this is accepted, I will produce specific diffs regarding these problems.

Response to Statement by Moreschi

While I would agree that it is not necessary that Wikiproject ID include pro-ID editors, I have found that the current status of the project is a symptom of the problems, and not a cause. Several of the editors in the group are extremely hostile towards anyone who shows so much as a hint of a belief that isn't what they want to hear. To be absolutely clear, it is not even necessary for an editor to advocate inserting such POV to evoke the hostility I'm mentioning. For example, in my first interaction with several of them, I attempted to make a small point in arguing against a (relatively minor) suggested change, and found myself drawn into an off-topic argument and ultimately attacked, even though I had initially agreed with them [23].

Another example was the case of Moulton, in which he was characterized as a pro-ID editor using deceptive supporting evidence at his RfC.

In summary, no, it would not be a problem for the active members of the project to be anti-ID. However, it is a problem when editors are attacked by members of the group as supposed supporters of ID, often without any evidence to support such an assumption. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Gnixon

I'd be interested in contributing to this process or a similar one in whatever forum is appropriate. There is a serious problem here that has been ignored for far too long. Gnixon (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Jim62sch

My thoughts echo the statement made by Guettarda. I will add that this is one of the more bizarre RFAR's I've ever seen: the assumption must be that the editors named by Sceptre are acting en masse and apparently are locked in a hivemind-group that what? Committed sins together? Is sarcastic in varying degrees? Has made a lot of damned good edits to Wikipedia? Only has one FA in common while have a lot of FA's among them? Colour me confuddled and befused. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

One other thought: ascribing motives is bad. That said, as the filing of this "group" RFAR depends hevaily on the ascribing of motives, I'd just like to know if this has anything to do with Giggy's Dihydro-oxide's RFA. Weird, this is his fifth RFA, which means he had lots of oppose votes on the first four, and weird the turn-out on his RFA, and weird ... well, you can infer the rest. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(sorry to butt in here, feel free to move me to wherever.) The issue was raised at User talk:Filll#Emails about a current RfA, and yes, that does refer to my RfA. (Hence the {{notaballot}} at the top of it.) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 22:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You're not butting in. But, the point still escapes me: Filll did a bad thing and that somehow implicates everyone else named in this RFA? I'm sorry, but I fail to see how I'm responsible for Filll's screw-up. Or is this in some weird way "guilt by association"? Balloonman's comments on the RFA really make me wonder where the true canvassing is. Of course, seeing canvassing on the support side is just my perception, but ... well ... I do make my living as an analyst, and the perception is most certainly supported by the data. On the other hand, there's also the possibility, raised by one of the folks who opposed, that you've made a lot of friends. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 16:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply to AndonicO

Given the level of support for Giggy (especially compared to his last four RFA's), charges of canvassing by a group seems, well, ironic.

Nonetheless, when I vote on RFA's, I not only look at the candidate's statements, but at who is opposing or supporting him/her. Then I balance/analyse/compare the two pieces of input and make a decision. So far as I know, I'm perfectly within my rights to vote in this manner (after all, how many support or oppose votes are "per xxxx"?). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to VO

Since any comment I make re you or your statements (current and future) may violate the findings of the RFAR on me (a link to which you thoughtfully provided), I'll just be quiet. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 11:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW: I consider your comment a vio of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASS, but that's just my opinion, which is not, at least in your non-befogged eyes, credible. I hope I'm not violating WP:AGF here, but I have a right (or is that a wrong?) to my opinion. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to KC

Du hast recht. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 16:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply to The Undertow

Point one: "So I unblocked Moulton. Within minutes of my unblock, who was there? This ID crowd.". See the Rosalind Picard article an its history, especially vis-a-vis Moulton and POV, COI, CONSENSUS, etc., for answers. It's not an "ID crowd" (whatever that term means) -- hell, it's not even a crowd.

Point two: "They are WP:Intelligent Design - yet NONE of the participants believe in ID. Does that not strike anyone as odd? " Your first statement is utterly false (please contact Uncle Ed for verification. Second, anyone can join any project. Projects are open to all. Project Articles clearly state they are part of the project or "a series of articles". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Point three: this seems troubling. But maybe it isn't. I don't want to cast aspersions, especially when they would be based on assumptions. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Viridae

An RfC on this matter will almost certainly turn into a slanging match - though it might provide more evidence when when it arrives back here. Viridae^Talk 03:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Videmus Omnia

Even a cursory review of the evidence will show that the members of the Intelligent Design Article Ownership Association regularly acts as a team and employs canvassing and meatpuppetry, no matter how minor the issue. For some examples, see the image talk pages on Image:Pandas and ppl.jpg, Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg, and Image:Darwin on Trial.jpg. The latter is particularly notable because FeloniousMonk (who really should be a party to this case) showed up as both an anon IP and as an "uninvolved admin" to remove the disputes from the image page on behalf of his WikiProject. Not to mention the arbitration case on Jim62sch, who was acting wholly in his ID-article-defender capacity, which should completely destroy any credibility he personally may have as a commenting party here. This "cabal" is a disgrace to the 'pedia. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Filll

Apology

I’ve been accused of canvassing the Dihydrogen Monoxide RFA. Canvassing is a serious matter and this deserves a response. I did not intentionally canvass. What I did do was e-mail three people and inform them that the RfA was happening. Mentioning the existence of an RfA to a small number of people, without suggesting how to vote, is normal communication among Wikipedians.

One thing I did that might not appear normal: instead of linking to the entire thread—which was what I intended to do, I just cut and pasted from the address bar on my browser window, thereby linking to the “oppose” subsection which I had recently visited. That was a careless mistake.

Pretty much all of us have posted the wrong link by accident some time or other, and that was exactly what I did. This mistake was so close to the link I actually intended to send that I didn’t even realize I’d made the error until comments about it came back to me.

I apologize for the mistake and I apologize for the confusion and distress it caused. I know the circumstances look dubious. I ask everyone who sees this statement to assume good faith and bear the following in mind:

• I contacted only three people.
• Nothing else in the short messages had any suggestion about how to vote.
• In over 30,000 edits and 3 featured articles, I’ve never made an error remotely like this one before.
• I promise it will never happen again.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll's editing

• It has always been my personal policy on Wikipedia to immediately delete or strike any material that offends another editor on request, whether I agree with the request or not [24].
• For months I have unilaterally placed myself on 2RR or even 1RR.
• After witnessing repeated threats against members of the Intelligent Design Wikiproject, I removed my name from the list of members, first temporarily [25] and then permanently [26].
• After several have made threats or engaged in other attacks which they claimed were motivated by a desire for revenge for voting "incorrectly" on RfAs [27][28][29], I have announced that I will no longer take part in such polls on Wikipedia [30]. Even this RfAr is apparently partly in revenge for voting the "wrong way" on one or more RfAs. I was even attacked for voting "incorrectly" in two RfAs that I did not even vote in at all [31]. I will not participate until the community makes it clear that one can be involved in RfAs and other polls without fear of retribution.
• At the announcement of this RfAr, I have unilaterally topic-banned myself from all controversial articles, including topics associated with alternative medicine, intelligent design and evolution. I will not return to editing any controversial article until Wikipedia decides that an editor should be able to do so without being subject to threats and intimidation.

Is this enough for the howling lynch mob? Probably not.

Comment on this RfAr

This RfAr appears to be nothing more than an example of vexatious litigation, meant only to harass and intimidate a small group accused of a variety of "thought crimes". Some of these comments appear to be an attempt to relitigate previously-settled dispute resolution proceedings. Other complainants give the impression of being bent on obtaining revenge for some past real or imagined slight. Still others seem to want to use Wikipedia procedures as weapons to satisfy some ideological agenda or impose some sort of vigilante justice.

The group targeted is not some evil powerful monolith, but a loose association that only occasionally acts in concert, sharing only a generally pro-science outlook. I was not aware that being in favor of including scientific views among those represented in an encyclopedia was among the worst offenses possible here. It is dismaying to me that good faith attempts to uphold Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:NPOV are viewed so negatively by such a large group, seemingly acting in a coordinated fashion as, dare I say, a "cabal".

Suggestion

If this series of complaints is accepted as an Arbcomm case, or referred to an RfC intended as a prelude to an Arbcomm proceeding, I believe it could be accurately characterized as an abuse of Wikipedia policies and procedures, by allowing them to be misused as weapons to attack perceived "enemies". In the real world, frequently jurisdictions have mechanisms that reduce the excessive and spurious use of judicial instruments and impose costs on those seeking to abuse the system.

On Wikipedia, we should establish a similar precedent. WP should also dampen the enthusiasm of those who want to harass ideological and political "adversaries" using WP administrative instruments and venues by reserving the right to impose penalties if complaints are

• spurious
• excessive
• abusive
• motivated by a desire for punishment or vengeance
• an effort to relitigate previously settled issues

If Wikipedia does not discourage these kinds of behavior, it will just:

• waste its limited resources
• damage the goodwill of the volunteer community that it depends on
• allow some elements to create a poisonous atmosphere--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply to the_undertow

It is a bit ridiculous to claim that "no members of the ID Wikiproject believe in ID". There are currently 21 members of the ID Wikiproject, and there are 2 former members listed in this RfAr. Ali'i has claimed to have found another 5 alleged members that do not appear in the list of the paricipants of the ID Wikiproject.

However, of the 21 currently listed members, I know that one is inactive right now, at least 4 are supporters of ID that I know of, 7 are at least partially skeptical of intelligent design and I do not know the position of the other 9 on the matter. My own position is that I am highly skeptical of the version of intelligent design that has been advanced by the Discovery Institute.

I am not an anomaly. I am joined in this position by well over 99 percent of the scientists in the relevant fields, and every major scientific body that I know of, representing the vast majority of professional scientists. Statistically, the Wikipedia ID Wikiproject already has way more ID supporters than a representative group of 21 average scientists. So instead of being underrepresented at Wikipedia, in fact ID supporters in the ID Wikiproject are overrepresented, at least compared to a group of relevant experts, which after all is the standard that Wikipedia must apply for NPOV.

Comments by User:KillerChihuahua

I reserve the right to copyedit or replace it later - thanks in advance for your understanding.

I believe what we have here is a case of confusion, and possibly vendetta. A few salient points:

• Members of the same wikiproject usually edit a lot of the same articles. I have a shortcut on my userpage, and have had it there for months, which shows me recent changes on all project article pages. This is normal and not OMG A CABAL.
• Members of the same wikiproject usually clash with the same editors, who arrive and either push a POV or attempt to insert OR or inaccurate information, or violate Undue Weight. This may be done innocently, because the editor has a misunderstanding, or deliberately, because the editor has a POV to push. Doesn't matter what the motives are, whether pure as the driven snow or not; they will find the exact same group of editors disagreeing with them and opposing them to one degree or another. This is normal and not OMG A CABAL.
• No "canvassing" or "meatpuppetry" is required for members of a small wikiproject to appear to work in lockstep; especially when the focus or subject of the project is so partisan and divisive as Intelligent Design. ID is not science; it is utter crap, and everyone who is knowledgeable about it knows this. All the sources which are not aligned with the movement say this. In short, 99.999% of the world, including all the experts, have the precise same view of ID. Guess what? So do the members of the wikiproject, because we've bothered to learn something about the topic. No mass hypnosis, canvassing, or OMG A CABAL is needed. No violations of OWN are involved with protecting articles from FRINGE viewpoints, inaccuracy, and soapboxing or POV pushing.
• Moulton ran afoul of several members of the ID wikiproject when he edited an article which is an ID article.
• Surprise, everyone in the wikiproject eventually became aware of Moulton during his highly disruptive stay on Wikipedia.
• Surprise, everyone who tried to work with Moulton is unimpressed with the concept of unblocking him when he hasn't even said he'll try to follow our WP:RULES.
• DHMO, aka Giggy, pushed for unblock when even Moulton's supporters were saying "no, not yet."
• Surprise, those who saw Giggy on Rfa, who were members of the wikiproject, all thought some variation of "damn, he has sorry judgment". This is a guess, as I don't read minds, but I'll guarantee it is a good guess, and it is bourne out by several comments made during his Rfa.
• DHMO aka Giggy also has repeated the "ID CABAL" bullshit which started on WR, I think Moulton was even the one who started it - whoever did, its been all over threads which are about Moulton on their forums.
• I note that MastCell, for an example, who tried very hard to deal with Moulton, also opposed Giggy. He's not a member of the Wikiproject, so he's not a member of OMG THE CABAL, and is not named in this farce. Good for him. If I'd never joined the damn project a couple of years ago when Uncle Ed started it, I wouldn't be either, because I have avoided the Image Wars and almost all BLPs, and I have not had anyone tell me I've been too harsh or rude on any article talk page. But perhaps I would still be OMG A CABALIST because I blocked Moulton. I hadn't edited the article he edited; I hadn't had any interaction that I recall. Feh.
• I have, oddly enough, edited Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence - to protest the entire ID Wikiproject being lumped together by Krimpet. I resent it enormously. I imagine I'm not the only member of the project who resents it. Yes, we edit some of the same articles - WE'RE IN THE SAME WIKIPROJECT. Its not rocket science, people. And its not a conspiracy either. Just for those of you who were wondering, I was not on the grassy knoll and I had nothing to do with adding fluoride to your water. So you conspiracy theorists can leave me out of this crap, thank you very much. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Orderinchaos

I endorse Sceptre's initial statement, but think "intelligent design editors" is way too wide a scope, especially as for the most part we're not dealing with editing on or anything related to intelligent design. There are two issues here which I think need to be addressed, the rest I have no opinion on as I'm not sufficiently appraised of the facts:

• OrangeMarlin in particular seems to have become a beacon for drama and is pushing a very strong agenda against what he sees is racism (often well beyond any conventional dictionary definition of racism), to the point of assuming bad faith of almost everybody and seriously disrupting some of Wikipedia's processes - it's like an "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality and is seriously unhelpful. (added 00:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)) See [32] also.
• The issues at DHMO's RfA, highlighted by Daniel's statement above in particular, are seriously concerning and I think need to be gotten to the bottom of. While they had no material effect on the RfA, I believe it's a sort of problem we're going to have to deal with in the future if it's not dealt with now. (I accept Filll's explanation and apology, but there was a good deal more than one canvasser from stuff I've heard privately.)

I know I'm not the only person who is absolutely sick of these guys disrupting AN/I to make their point. I'd be more sympathetic if the people they single out were actually racist, but I have seen no evidence to that effect.

I do not believe an RfC would solve the problems as, firstly, this mess is drawing in editors completely unrelated to the initial dispute whose only reason for involvement is anger at one or more of the parties for actions taken elsewhere, and secondly, it's already at the stage of trench warfare and the parties aren't talking to each other in a way remotely approximating impending collaboration or a state of affairs where such could arise. We need to deal with bad or disruptive behaviour, not give it a platform to flourish.

Per others, also oppose a merger with other cases. Orderinchaos 03:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Orangemarlin

I rarely get involved in these things, because they end up being tendentious and quite frankly, "he said, she said". But I had to comment here, because it deserve something from me, since my name is being abused quite regularly around here.

• The only Cabal I belong to is being against the anti-Science POV pushed by Creationism (Intelligent design being one form), CAM, and Cryptozoologists. The trend across all of the fringe POV groups is that they are opposed to reliable sources, verification, and scientific method, and total reliance upon original research. One merely needs to know that my edits are involved in that arena.
• Because there are dozens upon hundreds upon thousands of editors in Wikipedia who prefer science, verification, and reliability in citations, we will all cross paths eventually. I don't give a shit about Intelligent design one way or another just to make a mess of Wikipedia, that's an unfair statement. In fact, I care more about anti-science cruft being thrown into medical articles, to be honest, but in general, I'm opposed to anti-science POV anywhere in the project. Since science, verification, and reliability support most of my edits, I guess the real cabal is the anti-science group who's pushing an anti-science, unverified, and unreliable POV. So, no I'm not in a cabal. Lucky for me, however, there are a lot of editors who understand NPOV, and we stand up to the anti-Science cabal.
• By the way, in reference to Orderinchaos, the only AN/I's I see are from the anti-Science cabal. Mostly, I either ignore or, rarely, respond to the AN/I's from that cabal.
• Also, in reference to Orderinchaos, racism is racism. In every case where I've pushed that racism was apparent, two editors were indefinitely blocked, one admin kind of resigned, and....oh that's it. So if that's disruption, you have an odd definition of it.

OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ali'i

I appreciate a lot of what the named editors do, but there are some serious concerns with votestacking and civility among the group. Besides dihydrogen monoxide's request, there are several other requests that I think should be looked at regarding OrangeMarlin, Filll, Jim62sch, JoshuaZ, Baegis, Guettarda, KillerChihuahua, Odd nature, dave souza, Raymond Arritt, Badger Drink, ScienceApologist, QuackGuru, and FeloniousMonk (Please note that I'm not specifically accusing any one of these as being disruptive, but these were just the names I saw keep coming up almost always voting together). These are from roughly the last 6 months.

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Thumperward
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Riana
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Seicer
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_Transhumanist_5
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TenPoundHammer_5
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wikidudeman_2
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sony-youth
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Coppertwig
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Risker

Many of these are the only requests commented upon by many of these people in the past 6 months or so. A bit of the time, one or the other just comes in stating, "Per <another named user or two>." I am wondering if the outcome would have been any different if this group had not commented. I understand that this group includes some very good long-term editors, and I may just be seeing things, but I think this needs to be looked at. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Addendum, hoping to clarify: It isn't just the similar commenting that concerns me slightly. It is also the time in which much of the commenting is done (many falling right after another), the manner in which the comments are given ("per other user listed"), and the general lack of other RfA edits (some have commented on other RfAs, but for some, these are the only ones they commented upon). I didn't lay out my evidence fully here, since that would be too long for this page (would do so on the evidence subpage if accepted), I just felt it necessary to start to bring the issue to the foreground. Especially in an area these subject matter editors would generally would have no connection within (of course they will edit the same science pages... they do a very good job of protecting these articles from certain uneeded points of view). I hope I make sense. E kala mai if I still do not. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To Filll

You wrote: "Ali'i has claimed to have found another 5 alleged members that do not appear in the list of the paricipants of the ID Wikiproject." No, like I said before, I haven't claimed to have found anything. I don't think some of those listed above care much about the Intelligent Design Wikiproject. My statement was not regarding a specific Wikiproject. And I agree with Guettarda, it does not matter what the members of a particular project believe. I am glad we have science editors in a "scientific" project. That's how it should be. --Ali'i 20:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

OK, I promised myself I wouldn't comment here, but Ali'i's statement requires a bit of... context? Honesty recalibration? Ali'i's statement makes it sound like many or all of these editors !voted as a bloc on many or all of these RfA's. I looked at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Risker, as the most recent and most familiar to me. Orangemarlin, Guettarda, and QuackGuru opposed. JoshuaZ and Raymond arritt supported. Wow. Stay back! Cabal At Work! Most of the others are cases where large numbers of varied editors supported or opposed, among which were a handful of the named editors. This suggests only that these editors routinely scrutinize RfA's, and that their opinions are shared by quite a few non-"cabal" members.

This makes about as much sense as the oft-repeated claim that it's "highly suspicious" for members of the ID WikiProject to !vote 7-0 against DHMO's RfA. News flash: DHMO wrote a blog post a week or two before his RfA blasting the "ID clique" and trumpeting his disgust at them. Could that have played some role in the impugned editors' unanimous opposition to his subsequent RfA the following week? No, it must be cabalism.

I would urge an extreme degree of skepticism in examining these broad claims, as most of them are about as factual as Ali'i's not supported by the cited links, assuming any links are even cited. It's obvious that a limited number of real, justifiable concerns here are being overwhelmed by hyperbole, pile-on grudges, and the scent of blood in the water. MastCell ^Talk 16:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I've struck or modified this slightly. I think Ali'i is operating in good faith and it was improper of me to question his honesty, though I do strongly disagree with his and others' interpretation of their cited links. 16:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Irpen: this sounds familiar

First, until seeing this RfArb, I've never heard of the project-ID. After seeing it, I though first that this is about the debate against anonymity what shows how ignorant I was and how little I am connected with "defendants". In fact, I can easily recall some heated content disagreements with some of them. So, no one asked me to comment. I just want to state this outright.

Now, this case seems amazingly familiar. Here is what we've got. There is a group of editors who partly (or fully) share their values and visions of Wikipedia. And there is another group united by whatever that also seems to be coordinated. So far, this is natural and we can't do anything about that, like it or not. There is an off-wiki communication within each group. Again, nothing extraordinary. However, and this is where it gets interesting, one group vies for "power on Wikipedia" (or its sector) and sees the tightness of the other one as a challenge? Wikipedia power-games are destructive for the encyclopedia, silly and wrong-headed but they happen. There was a time when a certain cohort appointed itself to become Leadership and Guardians of the Wikipedia (LGW). I would rather call them IRC_Tier-1. Those old-timers tried to intimidate Slim and "editors close to her" many times. This (commented here) was the prime example of Tier-1 action. But hijacking the ArbCom for the exact same purpose is not new either (commented here). This explains the familiarity.

We now have a new crop, the IRC_Tier-2, largely devoted to self-reproduction and promoting admins of a specific sort thus expanding their ranks and "power" (whatever it means). Result: we've got this adminship mill. Those fellas completely dominated RfAdm process early this year and started to loose it about a couple of months ago. How do we know they are angry? Well, if civility vigilants are getting incivil at the RfA's themselves when their groomed candidates are loosing it, certainly something is going on. Many editors learned to pay attention to the names of nominators as many notice similar RfA's of typical career mandarins submitted by typical (or even same) users one after another. And the tide turned lately as many of those those nominations got defeated. So, the adminship mill got furious as you can see from their behavior on RfAdm's of their proteges. Trying a different approach, launching this RfArb, adds some variety to their actions but adds nothing new overall. IRC_Tier-1 has already tried that and got RfArb rejected at the time.

Back then I suggested that as alternative of the rejection, the ArbCom accepts the case and focuses on using the Arbitration frivolously to game the system. I recommend the committee to study both alternatives this time as well.

As a final word, I would like to say that my words should not be considered as applied to all candidates whose RfAdm are affected by this. There are good guys even among the candidates supported by the mill.

Response to SirFozzie's comment posted at 05.12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, I was not clear. I take no position on the alleged behavior of the ID-project as a team simply because I did not encounter it personally. Now, that I think of it, in addition to a long ago content dispute I mention above, I received some quite rude and inappropriate comments from other project members at my talk. I normally brush off such nonsense. All I am saying, SirFozzie, is that the Adminship Mill is the least proper compliant to accuse anyone of cabalism. Give me a break! It is of course a mere coincidence that one currently running mill RfA piled up twelve supports in its first hour and the other one piled 29 supports in its first hour and a half. And these are not Newyorkbrads or Phaedrils we are talking about but guys much less visible outside the mill's circle. For more, check the intimidation of the opponents by the mill at the oppose sections and RfA's talk pages. I can see how annoyed the mill is to see their turf, the RfA pages, slipping away in the last couple of months (see my earlier comment.) But what a nerve these folks have to come here and talk cabalism! My point was that if ArbCom takes this case, it should look at the use of this page as another venue of intimidation. I think, this is a valid concern to voice. --Irpen 18:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Response to Tony Sydaway's comment posted at 13.51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony, you greatly misunderstood me. I do not suggest that there is a single conspiracy going on for years that you are a member of. These are separate incidents. Back then, there was one team of now seasoned IRC veterans (Tier-1), of who many by now left or keep a much lower profile. This new phenomenon, the adminship mill, is very loosely related to Tier-1, if at all. What makes two cases, not two groups, similar is the attempt to use the RfArb to get on a coherent group of opponents as its existence and coordination seems to challenge the ability to "run Wikipedia". The #admins circa 2006 had much a greater ambition: to run Wikipedia and be everyone's "mother". That condition started to phase out since its being exposed during the Carnildo affair and is largely obsolete. The ambition of the mill is much more modest, to control the RfAdm space. Similarly challenged and seeing itself loosing it, they resort to the same trick, filing an RfArb. You have no direct relation to the latter case. --Irpen 18:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

I'm not sure what Irpen is suggesting here. That the conspiracy he has been banging on about for years, of whom he explicitly identifies me as a former member above, was out to get Slim Virgin? If it were so, wouldn't I, a long time admirer of Slim Virgin, have noticed that? Of course the truth is that no such conspiracy ever existed. People using IRC have diverse opinions. I would also like to register a note that I have always been a very infrequent contributor to Requests for adminship. It is distasteful to fling such blatantly false accusations around. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the work of the ID group. In particular I looked at the signature article. It's reasonably well written but perhaps a little heavy-handed. One thing that concerns me is that the external links section seems to be full of promotional links for a fringe scientific viewpoint (and one or two links that seem, in context, to have been inserted specifically to oppose it). This kind of thing is normal in editing and can be resolved by further discussion on the talk page. If there's something nasty going on, in any way, the evidence seems to be lacking. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Note by Orderinchaos

The RfA in question has now concluded, so if anything was waiting on that, it can now proceed. Orderinchaos 00:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by ScienceApologist

There are three groups of Wikipedians that are active here, and the synergy is interesting:

1. Friendlies
2. Experts
3. Cranks

The Friendlies are a trenchant group of Wikipedians (many of whom are closely-knit administrators) who act as though Wikipedia is a massive-multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) and use the administrative actions as their weapons and the noticeboards as their battlegrounds. They give each other WikiLove, pride themselves on being WikiGnomes, and think Admin Coaching is the bee's knees. For them, Wikipedia is an experience where they can wield power, make friends, and destroy enemies.

The Experts are a group of trenchant Wikipedians who are involved to maintain content at a level that keeps the encyclopedic integrity of Wikipedia very high. These people make snap judgments about other editors very quickly and work to maintain pages about ludicrous ideas to states that are as close to the mainstream understanding of them as possible.

The Cranks are a group of trenchant Wikipedians who hate the status quo and want Wikipedia to trumpet their new discovery, their particular spin on reality, etc.

The following ensues:

1. Expert moves forcefully against Crank.
2. Crank forum shops until they find sympathetic Friendly who objects to Expert's use of force.
3. Friendly defends Crank not based on content but based on perceived behavior.
4. Expert moves forcefully against Friendly.
5. Friendly sees opportunity to play MMORPG and moves forcefully with Crank against Expert.
6. Expert withdraws.
7. Wikipedia suffers.

There you have it. That's the story of my activity at Wikipedia in a nutshell. It's also many other's stories.

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Brief additional plea by MastCell

If this case is accepted, for the love of all that is holy, please accept it with a clearly and prospectively defined scope. Is this about "intelligent design editors"? Editing patterns on specific ID-related articles? Harmful cabalism? Canvassing at an RfA? On what basis is this case being considered? MastCell ^Talk 04:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:Odd nature

The real issue here is not the ID editors but rather those attacking them at every turn and their campaign against them being run by Sceptre, Cla68, LaraLove Moulton, User:B, etc. at WikipediaReview. This is a topic worthy of the Arbitration Committee's time.

Sceptre's request here is not all it appears. Immediately after filling this RFRA Sceptre started a thread at WikipediaReview with the title "Attention ID editors, a Category 3 shitstorm is approaching..." [33] Note the fact that Moulton is all over Sceptre's thread. Who else here supporting Sceptre's RFAR is there attacking the same "ID editors"? Cla68, Dihydrogen Monoxide (as Giggy), User:B, Lar, LaraLove (as LaraHate), and SirFozzie, all discussing their plan of attack: "Sceptre, you should have drafted an RfC first. There are plenty of people who could help you out with it and co-certify it with you." from Cla68[34] for example.

Sceptre's RFAR is simply more disruption coming from WikipediaReview regulars harassing Wikipedia editors they mean to drive off the project. No doubt much of Sceptre's motivation fiing this was due to FeloniousMonk's RFAR filing on Cla68's harassment of others. The Arbitration Committee shouldn't let WikipediaReview editors use RFAR as another channel for harassing Wikipedians, but at the same time the behavior of Sceptre and the gang needs to be looked at and addressed before they drive valued, productive contributors off Wikipedia for good: We've already lost Raymond Arritt over this crew's latest demarche. Odd nature (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by LaraLove

I was going to avoid this case, however, my name was brought up, so I'll just state that I'm in only one cabal, and it generally involves terry cloth and little else. I nominated DHMO because I believe he would be an asset to WP as an administrator. I was a gamer for many years, but I left that and I don't view WP as a multi-player game. If anyone has concerns about my use of admin tools, feel free to point out specific cases of potential abuse. And I'm not part of a WR conspiracy. Sceptre contacted me in IRC about a desire to open this case. I recommended that he go through RFC first, but he didn't feel like it would be useful in this case. I didn't foresee this case being accepted and had decided not to contribute, although I do agree that it does appear that members of this group work together, outside of the scope of their shared wikiproject, to support each other in various areas of the project. So while I don't necessarily believe that this is the proper forum at this time, I do believe there is definitely an issue here that needs to be addressed.

Other than that, Orangemarlin has grossly understated his behavior in calling people racists with absolutely no evidence that it is either true or relevant. His summary of editors for whom have been the target of his racist claims is woefully selective. Wherever this case ends up, I can provide many diffs to demonstrate what I believe to be inappropriate behavior by Orangemarlin in where he makes false claims against editors and then attempts to garner support for these false claims from others. Lara❤Love 04:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: As User:Odd Nature inaccurately stated here, this RFC has been filed, stating the same inaccurate information. I can't speak for the rest, but I'm not involved in any campaign against the ID group. I didn't even know this group existed until OrangeMarlin started calling me a racist all over the place and all these people came to back him up. My participation in the thread that is so over-dramatized included a grand total of one post from me, and it wasn't about the RFAR. I already stated, I told Sceptre not to file the RFAR and I wasn't participating until ON started with this inaccurate description of events. THIS is exactly the sort of junk this RFAR is about. They can't defend themselves and their shady actions, so they attack the people pointing it out. They've been getting away with this for far too long. Lara❤Love 01:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Jim62sch

He decided to take a break after his RFAR, his pages were blanked and protected. He returned to participate in giggy's RFA. Someone unprotected his page, as he was again active. Once the RFA was withdrawn, he returned to his break. For many may know, when you're on a wiki-break, it is often easier if you don't have messages on your talk page attempting to draw you back in. He attempted to blank his own talk page, but that didn't work, so I took care of it for him. It is not uncommon practice to protect the talk pages of those on extended breaks. Just a courtesy. Lara❤Love 05:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Casliber

Oh dear, where to start? As far as behaviour at DHMO Giggy's RFA, it seemed as though this issue ended up buried amid much wider drama displayed there. It is also interesting to discuss canvassing on one side (the opposes) when the support side received over 300 (!) supports, so singling out canvassing on one side I feel is questionable, though I note Filll 's comments above. Many editors do keep a watch (either by regularly checking into RFA or watchlisting the redlinked RFA page until it turns blue) on editors whose conduct they may have concerns with as potential admins, whether due to fringe viewpoints, civility, deletionsit/inclusionist or whatever issues tehy feel would impede WP's stability, and will vote accordingly. As the project gets bigger, maintaining integrity can get harder and there is a systemic issue with fringe ideas, so much so that it has been a subject of much ongoing discussion. There are plenty of unofficial cabals on wikipedia and it would be naive of us to assume otherwise. Folks build up friendships and networks, help friends etc. I don't see this so called 'ID cabal' as any more close knit or than others which have existed over the years, whether role-players, deletionists or whatever. FWIW, I did support Giggy though was taken aback about the timing after the recent drama.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Anonymous Dissident

I think this should be rejected, for now at least. This issue does not yet warrant arbitration; an RfC may prove more productive at this point, and it may turn out that an arbitration case isn't necessary in the solving of these problems. Even if it doesn't do that, it may serve to actually better articulate the issues and allegations, as it were: I'm seeing a lot of vague, general expressions of concern about the incivility, the canvassing, the cabalism, and wahthaveyou, but I'd appreciate some cold hard diffs and quotations. That's not to say I necessarily dispute the trueness of these concerns, just that an RfC may serve to properly "lay the cards on the table" and in doing so more effectively get to the root of the matter. For now, these things aren't really present in this shakily defined RFAr. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by the_undertow

So I unblocked Moulton. Within minutes of my unblock, who was there? This ID crowd.

So I got angry at my ANI but who was there? The same crowd I had never encountered, but were calling for my head. But it went straight to Arbcom - and who was there? Same people. How powerful a group that can take a wheel-war to Arbcom? But hey, at Alex's Rfa, which group unianimously voted oppose here [35]? The same group that blocked Moulton.

But let's take a different perspective. They are WP:Intelligent Design - yet NONE of the participants believe in ID. Does that not strike anyone as odd? Wikiprojects should be like any endeavor. There is a point to collaboration and academic knowledge. I have a degree in accounting, so it makes sense that I would would join a project that is related to accounting because I can contribute based on my own credentials. Who better? OrangeMarlin called for a Klan member to recuse himself from editing the Klan article. But really, who better? If I asked a Black Panther to recuse his/her edits, I'd be shunned. I WANT to see a Black Panther editing the article because let's face it - this member is going to know more about it than I do. I pretty much will probably never be a Black Panther.

This fallacy actually occurred in American history when the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists decided to take names that were the antithesis of their own opinions. I understand that many WP members believe that relevant sources can come from anyone, regardless of affilation, but if WP:BILL CLINTON, was a group of Republicans, they could essentially stack the negative sources against him - making no mention of his presendency but only as a womanizer.

This can't go on. WP:MUSLIM cannot be comprised solely of Christian editors. It's unjust. We, as editors, rely on professionals at certain times, and unlike every other project, WP:ID is comprised of editors and admins that do NOT believe that ID is a viable alternative.

In short - we cannot have groups hide under projects when they absolutely disagree with the subject matter. It's bias at the core. Projects occur because likeminded people want to present credible information available to the masses. But there is no way in Hell, that Wikiproject:GOD should be run by atheists. Just because atheists believe that the 'idea of God exists' and the article exists, if they don't believe in the existence of the subject itself, they cannot be impartial and adhere to NPOV. It's a slap in the face of any academic work that WP:ID consists of members who denounce the subject as a viable belief. They may admit the subject matter exists, but they do not believe in the existence of the ideology, which makes them inherently single-sided.

We are supposed to be collaborating with these projects - not forming them because we find them to be implausible. And especially when administrative powers can be used to protect, rollback, and prevent people who do share these views from contributing.

This case should be accepted and the editing/voting/admin actions of this group should be put under a microscope. I appreciate your time. WP:POINT should apply to wiki-projects as well.

Statement by Moreschi

The undertow's statement is sheer nonsense, and indeed rather worrying. Intelligent design is a scientific hypothesis (unlike simple belief in God, which is not), and as such it is judged on scientific terms. Scientifically speaking, it is non-science (just like homeopathy). It is disingenuous bollocks, one of the more worrying pieces of crap emanating from the Bible Belt. This is uncontroversial among serious scientists, who do not even consider it a viable alternative to evolution (unlike, say, the Anatolian hypothesis as opposed to the Kurgan hypothesis, the former of which is viable but minority).

Ergo, it is perfectly reasonable for WikiProject ID to be staffed with non-IDers (that is, rational people), and is not at all like WikiProject Islam being staffed with Hindus. Now, whether or not WikiProject ID are going too far, and carrying political grudges into other areas of Wikipedia, I don't know. But this is exactly the sort of the case ArbCom does not do well (remember Allegations of apartheid, anyone?). As regards the recent DiHydrogen Monoxide RFA, there were plenty of very good reasons to oppose not relating to Moulton (such as those which I opposed for), and indeed most people did oppose for these other reasons. I have not noticed a prominent disruptive ID cabal presence elsewhere, and suggest that the real disruption here comes from people calling "cabal" when there is none. Apparently I'm part of SlimVirgin's family tree...now, what did I get temporarily kicked off wikien-l a while back for, anyone? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: by "scientific hypothesis" all I meant was "makes a claim about the world/attempts to explain scientific fact in a certain way". That is, it's a scientific (that is, science-related) hypothesis because it attempts to compete with evolution on scientific terms Perhaps "quasi-scientific hypothesis" is better. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Samuel Sol

I'm rather new to Wikipedia in terms of posting counting, but I do lurk all day on WP:ANI, WP:AN, WP:RFA and on this page. The acts of many of the party cite, and of most of WikiProject:ID is shamefull, to say the least. What happened on H₂O RFA was the most recent of a serious of abuses, and attacks on anyone that disagrees. I will not incur on personal attacks here, or name calling, but sometimes I felt I could compare some of the tactics to the tactics of the Church of Scientology in real life. Therefore I request the ArbCom to accept this case to put an end to the madness. As it was stated before, nobody should go through what H₂O had to go on his last RfA. Samuel Sol (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Moreschi

Intelligent design is a scientific hypothesis - No mate it is not. It fails one of the most fundamental principals in science, and that is falsability. And about the rest of your statement. Even if I don't agree completely with the_undertow, he is right that we should want IDers on Wikiproject ID, as we do want to non-IDers, and some of the I-don't-care-at-either crowd. Otherwise we would fail at NPOV. Samuel Sol (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Much more relevant than this, ID is a topic on Wikipedia. It will have multiple views, and we document and cite the significant ones. We do not need to form a view ourselves, whether it is "scientific" or not, to accurately do most of this, since our view is not as important as neutrally reflecting the significant views (and due weights) that are held and their respective voices. We do not need to treat ID differently from any other contentious topic, in principle, to do that.

Think of it as "just data" if that helps. It's just a topic of an article, where we aim to characterize (describe) the subject, the debate/s and the significant view/s, with neutrality, good cites, and fair weight, rather than re-enact them. All the arguments and differences that exist, are "just information someone might want to know about it", including whether X or Y consider it scientific, how it's used, the controversies attaching, support and dissent, and so on. (The main and authoritative voices for a large part of it will probably be scientific ones, but that doesn't change these basic approaches.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Call for RfC volunteers

It sounds like an RfC is in order. This case is extensive and immensely complex, thus I think a good bit of thought should be put into how to initiate the RfC. Of course, we're all volunteers, not full-time "wikilawyers." If you would be interested in working to draft an RfC, please leave a message at my talk page. The goal would be to compose an RfC that addresses all the important points within a finite scope, with a strong emphasis on resolving the conflicts rather than inflaming them. Gnixon (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by dave souza

Looking over the various contributions, there are evidently genuine concerns about attitudes leading to incivility, particularly on articles related to intelligent design or other subjects where mainstream scientific views contradict fringe views. Various groups or factions are involved, and to overcome divisiveness there is a need to find common ground and agree a consensus way of moving forward. A RfC as proposed above will give a welcome opportunity to examine particular cases in depth with the aim of improved understanding, though caution may be needed about reopening old cases that have already been the subject of arbitration. With these aims in mind, this opportunity should be taken to improve working together in a civil way to achieve full compliance with policies. . . dave souza, talk 22:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Brief view by Ncmvocalist

Agree with FayssalF. It's just becoming a smear campaign. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment by bwrs

I think that because this is primarily a content dispute, and only secondarily a conduct dispute, mediation is the way to go. I hope that this gets submitted to mediation and that the Committee accepts it. Bwrs (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Recuse given my current involvement investigating potential canvassing relating to this group of editors at an active RfA, and my nomination at the RfA in question. Daniel (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

 Note: I have left some comments regarding a potential pre-arbitration RFC on the talk page. Thatcher 15:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

• Reject, premature. Please go through a user conduct RFC; it will help gather some preliminary evidence regarding the matter, if nothing else. Kirill ^(prof) 01:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Accept to have a look at the behavior of all involved parties. I do not think a RfC would be helpful or achieve anything tangible in this case due to the involvment of many users. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see any problem in waiting until Dihydrogen Monoxide's RfA closes. My acceptance of this case remains as it is. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• There do seem to be potentially serious problems here. More specifics and focus would be helpful. An RfC would also help in this regard. Paul August ☎ 14:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Reject, the case as framed is far too nebulous; while the request stage is of course not for producing evidence, it is still necessary to demonstrate a need for arbitration. Allegations will need to be more specific (not more numerous, so to any more uninvolved parties who feel the need to comment, please consider whether your comment will actually contribute anything in this regard). There is also the issue of prematurity, as Kirill points out. An RfC would indeed have limitations, but it would at least help to better define the dispute. --bainer (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to agree there's a hard enough problem that could need our help. Perhaps it can be sorted out by the community - I'm not sure if that's really been tried as it stands. In brief, yes defer the case, and no strongly do not merge in with the C68-FM case (details below). I'd strongly agree with my colleagues suggestion of RFC: - you need communal feedback and more clarity yourselves about how others see all of it. It's likely such an RFC will be well attended by people on both sides with a vested interest in the dispute, of course, but you do need to at least give the wider community the chance to review and comment themselves, and get a sense what other perspectives may exist on this dispute area and how others see it. RFC is often quite good for that purpose. It can often clarify how the issue stands quite well, as the wider community sees it.

Arbitration is always available beyond that, but also (in case new ideas do come up) other dispute resolution methods might also be. You'd have to evidence the case anyway, and evidencing some of it and laying out the evidence roughly for the community at RFC, seeing how it's viewed, will probably help. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Update - Following a more detailed review, I do find myself concerned. As a result, at the appropriate time, if the community does not make further progress beforehand, I am more likely to be inclined to accept that there may be a need for a case. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Holding response to say I have looked into it but think that we should announce a decision after Dihydrogen Monoxide's RFA has closed. Request to the clerks not to remove the case for now. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Now that the RFA has been withdrawn, I suggest following the RFC as suggested elsewhere. If that fails to clarify matters I am minded to accept but let us all hope that the RFC can set down some firmer guidelines for behaviour. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Reject, for now. I'd like to see an RFC first to clarify the nature of the dispute, and some effort put in to narrow the scope. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Clarifications and other requests

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

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

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

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

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings

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

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

Statement by Privatemusings

The committee indicated previously that after a little while they might lift my indefinite restrictions in editing BLPs - is now a good time? I'd like to edit unencumbered.

Any help in properly formatting this request is appreciated, and I'm happy to answer any questions anyone might have! - In particular I should note that I have reverted some BLP vandalism whilst under this restriction (which you've discussed previously as being acceptable, I think) - and lately I've unintentionally and accidentally made a couple of very small edits to biographies (one of which inspired me to make this request - and see contrib.s for all the info...)

cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Request for injunction and restoration of deleted RFC: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Intelligent_design_editors

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

• Odd nature (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Random832 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notified: [36]
• moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notified: [37]

Statement by Odd nature

Based on evidence I uncovered of harassment by a organized group of editors of another group of editors yesterday I filed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sceptre, Sxeptomaniac, SirFozzie, B in an attempt to compell that group to disengage. Less than 24 hours after filing and less than four after being certified, Random832 nominated the RFC for deletion [38] and moreschi deleted it outside of process and without a clear consensus to delete.

I'd like the RFC reinstated to allow the community to show some consensus and Random832 and moreschi, or any other admin or editor related this group, enjoined from deleting or taking any other admin action related to this RFC.

Statement by Moreschi

Oh, for heaven's sake. A) ArbCom is not a court of law, B) this belongs at DRV, and C), please see my comment at ANI here. Improperly certified RFCs get deleted quick-smart and "consensus" is not required. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And I'm "related to this group"? BULLSHIT. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jim62sch

Denmark.&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• @Lar -- Now, now, WP:NPA. Denmark is an obvious reference -- a literary one to boot (and since this is an encyclopedia, such references are a propos. As for Latin or any of the lingua I know, I'll peper and solt my responses (or edit summaries) with them as I plese. Remember, our task here is to bring knowledge to the world! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Random832

I took no admin action. Am I being accused of having taken admin action? Have you provided evidence that Moreschi was involved? I was actually just coming back online to withdraw the MFD since on further reflection I'd decided it's worth keeping around as evidence of the way some people make accusations accompanied with links that don't support those accusations. --Random832 (contribs) 20:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Odd Nature has a tendency to see conspiracies everywhere, to accuse everyone who individually does something he disagrees with of being "friends" with everyone else. Where have I crossed paths with any of the other "involved" editors outside of this, that you can claim that I'm their "friend"? --Random832 (contribs) 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And I'm "related to this group"? BULLSHIT. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC) - You took action, therefore you're related. Maybe if they keep it up everyone can be related. This is a farce, seriously. --Random832 (contribs) 20:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

To be completely honest, I don't even particularly like Sceptre, and the others I don't really recall meeting at all. --Random832 (contribs) 20:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, an RfC against a group by another group is a bit unconventional, just as an RfAr against a group by another group is a bit unconventional. - Except, neither of those is a valid characterization of anything, considering that there is no identifiable "group" opposed to the set of editors that the original RFAR was filed against - there's just you claiming that everyone who dissents from you in any way is somehow a WR conspiracy, and any neutral user who steps in and fails to agree with you becomes incorporated into that supposed conspiracy. --Random832 (contribs) 23:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Lar

Jim62sch: Please assume that not everyone is as clever as you are, or as you think you are (whichever applies), and try to make statements that those for whom English is not a first language can parse. I think maybe I know what you mean by "Denmark"... but then again, maybe I don't. Communication wasn't did. Ditto for your use of Latin elsewhere, it's not helpful. This is an English project, not a Latin one. As for the requested injunction itself, I see not much harm in restoring the RfC as it will make those who initiated it look even sillier than they already do. But not much benefit either, so whichever. ++Lar: t/c 20:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:B

The content relating to me in this RFC was retaliation/harassment for my presentation of evidence at C68-FM-SV. As such, to the extent that the arbitration committee wishes to take action relating to it, there is already a suitable forum available. --B (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Filll

My impression is that this issue was going to be sent to the community for input in one or more RfCs. Clearly, an RfC against a group by another group is a bit unconventional, just as an RfAr against a group by another group is a bit unconventional. I thought that the entire motivation for having one or more RfCs was to gather more concrete evidence of any purported ill behavior by any involved. I will draw your attention to the quote by User: Thatcher on May 30, 2008: "And remember that your conduct in bringing the case will be looked at just as closely as the conduct of those you name in the case, so using the RFC as an opportunity for flamewars and personal attacks is going to be self-defeating." This deleted RfC was just a vehicle for looking at all the participants from a different vantage point. Probably one needs more like 10 RfCs, not just 2, but certainly 2 is much better than 1.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Addendum by User:Filll

I have noticed that User:LaraLove and User:Dtobias and User:Ncmvocalist and possibly a few others have protested their inclusion in this dispute and the associated administrative actions, including one or more of the associated, impending and threatened RfCs. These editors object on the grounds that they are not related to this dispute and want to opt-out of it.

However, I will respectfully point out that this is exactly the situation that the members of the ID Wikiproject, and even a group of editors that are not members of the ID Wikiproject, face in the ID RfAr filed by User:Sceptre, User:SirFozzie et al [39]. The same is true of the impending RfCs and potential Arbcomm actions. As User:Durova noted, this form of mass group administrative action where the group has poorly defined boundaries sets one or more precedents, and might not be the best conceived approach to settling any underlying dispute [40].

The ID RfAr broadly supposedly targets the ID Wikiproject, naming in particular User:Filll (who is no longer a member), User:Orangemarlin (who is no longer a member), User:Guettarda, User:KillerChihuahua, User:Jim62sch, and User:Ali'i even implies that User:JoshuaZ (never a member), User:Baegis, User:Odd nature, User:dave souza (never a member), User:Raymond Arritt (never a member and scrambled his password because of repeated intimidation, including the ID RfAr filing), User:Badger Drink (never a member), User:ScienceApologist (never a member), User:QuackGuru (never a member), and User:FeloniousMonk are also to be included in this broad attack. The RfAr makes allegations of evil collective behavior. There are all kinds of vague and unsubstantiated claims in the RfAr, even though at this writing it has been open for about 13 days, which should be more than enough time to produce at least some minimal evidence of substantial wrong-doing, which has not yet been forthcoming. All of these editors are treated as some sort of evil monolith, and all are blamed for a mistake made by any single editor, and any purportedly uncivil wording of any given editor is attributed to all the members of this ill-defined group.

As User:Thatcher stated on May 30, 2008: "And remember that your conduct in bringing the case will be looked at just as closely as the conduct of those you name in the case, so using the RFC as an opportunity for flamewars and personal attacks is going to be self-defeating." If we going to allow a precedent where 14 editors can be named as targets of a vague catch-all WP:COATRACK-y assault, then the side bringing these complaints will have to endure a similar treatment and scrutiny of their actions associated with this dispute or leading to this dispute, as Thatcher so fairly and presciently states. In fact, since I have been attacked mainly for doing nothing more than defending other members of this purported and mystical "cabal", then those same standards will have to be applied to all. So by that standard, clearly User:LaraLove and User:Dtobias are suitable targets for one or more administrative actions. In addition, User:LaraLove was deeply involved in provoking, enabling and defending some of the behaviors that are part and parcel of this dispute, so should be included on that basis as well. I do not know the particulars of Ncmvocalist and any potential others who might be more tenuously involved, but given that there are demands by SirFozzie and Sceptre et al that they be allowed to attack the widest possible group of editors, then it is only fair that the exact same standards be applied to both sides in this dispute.

I would repeat the previous appeal of User:FeloniousMonk for all involved to just disengage and walk away from this RfAr, the RfC drafts, and any further impending administrative actions, which he made in the deleted RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sceptre, Sxeptomaniac, SirFozzie, B. I forsee nothing but wasted time and irritation from this series of RfAr proceedings, RfCs and Arbcomm proceedings. As Thatcher stated, everyone's behavior is going to be under investigation and scrutiny if this goes ahead. No one should be allowed to "opt out", and probably no one will be allowed to "opt out". Any mistake or misunderstanding or ill-considered remark made on Wikipedia, or possibly on other sites such as Wikipedia Review, will be open to examination and second-guessing and potential misinterpretation. Highly improper and uncivil comments like Sceptre's gleeful edit summary that was used when he opened this RfAr are going to be criticized. I would ask everyone on all sides to please use some rationality here and please walk away from this potential huge time sink and impending disaster. All those attacking the ID Wikiproject should not feel so smug, since it is quite likely that a serious examination is going to turn up evidence of bad behavior on the anti-ID Wikiproject and pro-WR side that is not going to necessarily reflect them in the best possible light.

What can be done to resolve this

(1) Stop talking about the members of the ID Wikiproject off-wiki (2)Start assuming good faith of all ID Wikiproject members (3) Stop calling the ID Wikiproject a cabal (4) Stop undermining the credibilitiy and ability of ID Wikiproject members to function effectively.

I personally feel harassed and would like it to stop. I feel I am being driven off the project, since I am constantly being undermined through exaggerated accusations. I have withdrawn from RfAs and RfBs and other polls because of this harassment. I have withdrawn from editing all evolution, creationism and intelligent design articles and all other controversial articles because of this harassment. What more can I do but just leave the project?

So I ask all concerned: Please reconsider.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Dtobias

That RFC was ridiculous for many reasons, one of which was its scattershot approach of making (but hardly proving) accusations against a whole slew of different editors, including some who weren't even parties to the RFC... myself included. Like Random832, I was accused of being a "friend" of Sceptre, when I don't even particularly get along with him, and I was lumped in with a whole fundamentalist conspiracy against science regarding the evolution-related articles, which is a laff riot given that (1) I'm not religious at all, (2) I support evolution, not Intelligent Design, and (3) I haven't even edited any of the articles in question as far as I can recall. Still, I don't mind at all if this RFC were to be undeleted; it's good comic relief, and might prove useful in the future as something to cite against the people who brought it in future actions. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Sceptre

Jeff Fahey is a very quoteable person. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie

Considering the fact that the RfC was leaning heavily against Filll/Jim/OrangeMarlin at the time of deletion, I wish that it was merged to the THIRD RfC opened on this (which seems to be another chance to try to smear everyone involved rather then a true RfC), rather then deleted but agree that Jim et all are doing it all wrong in demanding that it be restored here instead of via DRV, etcetera. SirFozzie (talk)

Statement by LaraLove

I was misrepresented in this RFC. My name was mentioned three times but there was not one diff of evidence. I'm not one to claim harassment or yell incivility or assuming bad faith, but the claims being made about me lately with no supporting evidence are getting out of control. Lara❤Love 03:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ncmvocalist who formally requested the deletion

This whole request is bogus and needs to be dismissed. There was no sign of attempting to resolve the dispute. As I stated at the [ANI], User:Odd nature labels me, Cla68, LaraLove (LaraHate at WikipediaReview), Giggy, Dtobias (Dan T), The undertow, ThuranX, and Gnixon as "supporters" of the subjects of the RFC and insists the entire group "steer clear of participating in discussions regarding members of the project occurring anywhere on Wikipedia".

I'm uninvolved and have participated as a third party in several disputes (whether it be here, or at WQA), and at ANI - his accusations, I suppose, stem from me daring to participate and state anything he disagrees with. His gaming of the system to make unsupported unwarranted accusations against third parties, under the guise of satisfying a request from the arbitrators is unacceptable, and constitutes harassment, particularly when they're repeated as a smear campaign. The unacceptable manner in which he tried to have it certified - as if it is one dispute, when in reality, all he's done is referred to several disputes with several different users was another problem.

I therefore made the request to remove the bogus RFC and thankfully, Moreschi took action (the right action).

User:Odd nature needs to be reprimanded. Not only is it an abuse of process (as RFCs are part of DR, and intended to help resolve disputes), but it's an attempt to force uninvolved editors from commenting, when he disagrees with those comments. This is purely unacceptable harassment on his part. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

---

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

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

• Theresa knott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator) [41]
• SevenOfDiamonds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [42]

Statement by User:Kendrick7

I am fully in favor of giving the editor formerly known as User:SevenOfDiamonds amnesty. He has been a fine, if illegal, contributor under the guise of User:I Write Stuff for two and a half months, and was only caught out again because he was over zealously defending another user from rather tenuous charges of sockpuppetry very similar to the case under which he himself was banned, which seems a noble gesture if anything. Prior to this he used other accounts, which have also been blocked for no reason other than being the supposed sock of an indef blocked editor who once upon a time threatened the project with wanton disruption.

None of those accounts carried out the threats of the editor who ArbCom ruled he was a sock of:

• NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zer0faults (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All along this editor has contributed to the project constructively, with all of one 3RR block. Block logs:

• SixOfDiamonds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SevenOfDiamonds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• N4GMiraflores (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• I Write Stuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Grimlight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JessicaRamos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And additionally has created 42 articles:

Revolutionary Committee of Puerto Rico, COCEI, Rodolfo Fierro, Narciso Bassols, Movimiento de Liberation National, Genaro Vázquez Rojas, Elvia Carrillo Puerto, Demetrio Vallejo, Arturo Lona Reyes, Adolfo Christlieb Ibarrola, Andrés Molina Enríquez, Miguel Caro-Quintero, Sonora Cartel, Los Negros, Edgar Valdez Villarreal, Sinaloa Cartel, Agustín Casasola, Heraclio Bernal, Luis Amezcua Contreras, Jesus Amezcua Contreras, Adán Amezcua Contreras, Colima Cartel, Juan José Esparragoza Moreno, Ernesto Fonseca Carrillo, Javier Barba-Hernandez, Héctor Luis Palma Salazar, Mariana Grajales Coello, Ponciano Arriaga, Don Pedro Jaramillo, Salvador Nava Martínez, Jose Antonio Llama, Mario Montoya Uribe, Zapata Swamp, Zapata Wren, BINCI, Harold Bedoya Pizarro, Colombian presidential election, 1998, Zapata Sparrow, Luis Hernando Gómez Bustamante, Polaris (poker bot), Juan Carlos Ramirez-Abadia, Carlos Alberto Rentería Mantilla.

Hopefully this shows that he is not the disruptive editor he was accused of being. He would like to return to writing articles without the stigma attached and the constant on the run article creation. It's completely unclear, beyond reasons of personal egos of certain involved administrators, why this block continues. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to User:Merzbow, I'm uncertain whether sneaking back into the project and being a productive wikipedian is necessarily less respectful of the project than sitting on the sidelines moping for some indefinite period per WP:IAR. Having to constantly look over his shoulder for the INS for the past year seems punishment enough. Insisting he sit out now just seems WP:POINTy, and while he went a ways overboard with the G33 case, the history here makes it obvious why that case pushed his buttons. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to User:Horologium, there's been scant evidence of actual disruption, certainly none which ever rose to the level of a blockable offense apparently. Even the original ArbCom ruling made no finding that SevenOfDiamonds had in fact been disruptive, despite the arguments and evidence given in the case by certain editors of opposite political views. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In reply to User:B, yes, an apology would be great, but it's uncertain what SevenOfDiamonds is supposed to apologize for, since he continues to maintain he's not NuclearUmpf; Mr. N.U. could be on a beach in Tahiti trolling 4chan on his laptop and not be about to apologize for anything. Insisting SoD confess that's he's this other guy and apologize for that guy's behavior seems a bit of a two + two = five situation. People with life sentences make the worst prisoners; therefore, if it's solely a matter of doubt at to whether or not we've managed to properly break his spirit, at the very least the block should be shortened to some value of time less than infinity, so he can comply with the ban with some reasonable expectation of eventual re-admittance (even with certain restrictions) to the community. I sincerely believe that's in the best interest of the project. -- Kendrick7^talk there are four lights! 02:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In reply to User:Rlevse, I wholeheartedly agree that the community should cease wasting time with this, and I suggest some sort of amendment to the case would quite exactly make that possible. What we need to ask ourselves is whether, as our critics claim, wikipedia is about power tripping and WP:DRAMA or whether, as I secretly hope, it is about writing an encyclopedia. Because, despite our best efforts, that's what SevenOfDiamonds keeps doing -- writing an encyclopedia. And we need to face the reality that it's unlikely we will be able to successfully stop this behavior; we're just not getting through to this guy that our critics are right. Please raise your hand if you want to be preventing him from doing this for the next forty or so years because I think that's the true waste of time. As the lyrics of the one hit song by The Refreshments, "Banditos" says:[43]

So give your ID card to the border guard

Your alias says you're Captain John Luc Picard

Of the United Federation of Planets

Cause they won't speak English any ways

He'll make a few dozen articles, we'll figure him out again, and the process will repeat. -- Kendrick7^talk you didn't think I'd get that third Picard reference in did ya? 03:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Like Merzbow, I didn't pay attention to the case at the time, but I don't think any halfway decent computer scan would show a connection here, beyond both accounts being from metropolitan New York and being on a 9 to 5 schedule, which is pretty meh. Aside from the Allegations of U.S. State Terrorism article, NuclearUmpf/Zer0faults almost entirely edited in articles connected to 9/11, and occasionally regional graffiti artists and DJs, obscure Nato/Turkish/African military patrols, and the occasional Middle Easterner's bio (who probably have some 9/11 link). SevenOfDiamonds, et al., aside from the Allegations of U.S. State Terrorism article, most edited in articles related to Latin America militant groups, other Latin American topics, and (rarely) poker. The longer I look at it, the less it adds up. There are two outliers MONGO suggests. There's the band none of my friends under 25 would shut up about 2 years ago, the New York group Immortal Technique (made me listen to their song about 9/11 like 20 times), which Zero edited and SoD added to a template. And, Nuclear had a user subpage on Hugo Chavez, which hopefully you don't need to be an expert on Latin America to have heard of -- and who, as it says in his article, gives NYC tons of cheap heating oil, which makes him quite popular there (his article doesn't mention he does the same thing for Boston, and it sure makes him popular here). That hardly makes him the guy who's written dozens of articles on Cuba/Mexico etc. So these just don't convince me of a definitive link. Nor does the use of common messageboard speak (lol/rofl/+1). It's just "pop culture" type stuff for lack of a better term. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, yeah, User:FayssalF, I know where you are coming from. I'm happy to advise SoD to go completely away for two or three months as a show of good faith in the community and it's policies, at which point I'd be happy to file an appeal on his behalf, if this is something the Arbs felt would properly reshuffle the deck, so he can then get a new deal. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

:confused: You know, if I was playing poker at a live casino, and there was a dispute over a misdeal or an angle shoot, and I called the floorperson over only to have him mutter something about butterflies and wander off, I think I'd go on tilt :-) I'm busy all weekend, but if it's process you want, and it's not simpler to amend the original case somehow, I can also just open a case up on Monday, and let the chips fall where they may. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Or to simply be more blunt, whatever wisdom you are trying to impart has sailed way over my head; any more straightforward guidance would be appreciated. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this; I'm still crossing my t's and dotting my lower case j's here. Browsing the sock category, I found at least one example of a sock of Mr. N.U. (User:WheezyF, again, primarily editing NY DJs and rap artists before getting caught) claiming via another confirmed IP sock, User:TenOfSpades, to be SevenOfDiamonds, which, while unsurprising for an editor who has pledged continued disruption, complicates things. I want to confirm for myself that my contention is plausible before opening a case, but no smoking gun yet. I guess MONGO is right about that much -- N.U. indeed continues to pop in and cause problems. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Merzbow, that's the diff I was referring to. See here[44] for where Thatcher confirms all three are the same, yet on a different ISP from User:N4GMiraflores who we know with certainty is SoD. Yeah, it would be nice to find an example of prior art where SoD lists all the articles he created. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, aren't there are exactly two POVs on the U.S. state terrorism article -- people who want to expand it and people who want to delete it? Unless you are suggesting there is a subtler shade of POV I don't know about, that's not a cannon in itself. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you changed your argument to expanded your argument to include the 9/11 conspiracy article. I don't see how those two diffs relate though. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My head is spinning. It does seem N.U. also argued that he has created many articles as well in the past as can be seen on his own user page so I find the "smoking gun" diff odd but not inexplicable. As such, I will open a case soon, but I think one of SoD's account would need to be unblocked to act in his own defense if a case is opened, as I can't follow all the levels of intrigue going on here; especially when you start throwing Stone put to sky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s socks in the mix. My hamper contains less socks than the U.S. state terrorism article and I haven't done laundry in three weeks. In the meantime, I strongly recommend SoD leave his comments on his own talk page, where they are permitted, and I will attempt to review them, rather than continuing to violate his ban. You are in a hole -- stop digging amigo!! -- Kendrick7^talk 22:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Merzbow, I noticed that right away and assumed you had as well; that's why I called it a "confession." Look at IWS's (illegally posted) argument below. If N.U. was in fact following/disrupting the original case as SoD/IWS claims, it's not unreasonable that he'd lay low and wait until it was finished to resume editing from a new account believing the coast was now clear. SoD came back during the same timeframe as User:N4GMiraflores who was even part of the same checkuser. If SoD and N.U. are the same person, why would he create two accounts using two ISPs to edit two different topic areas (Latin Americans vs. NY musicians), only to "confess" that they are the same person in the course of harassing SPTS, who was actually an ally of SoD? It doesn't add up; especially if what IWS says below is true: that they in fact edited from opposite POVs on the U.S. state terrorism article, which is something I was previously unaware of. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't think a ten day overlay is anything close to a precise fit; I mean, you'd have to assume SoD got a secondary IP and created the N4GMiraflores with the malice of forethought to throw away the Wheezy account by harassing User:Stone put to sky about sockpuppetry SPTS hadn't even committed yet, which is about equally "grassy knoll." And the big gap in your reasoning is that N.U. is SoD even though they disagreed about the U.S. state terrorism article, while Wheezy and SoD are the same precisely because they did agree. Either N.U. had a complete change of heart and became SoD, in which, yes, case he could be Wheezy, or he didn't in which case, no, he couldn't be SoD. And yet Wheezy claimed to be both. So I don't see how things add up at all here. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As I've tried to remind people are that page and it's subpages over the last few weeks, WP:PRESERVE is a policy, not a POV, so say of me what you will. But ultimately, I think the best thing to do is to submit a case; perhaps this aberration can be sorted out. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Bigtimepeace

I was contacted by SevenofDiamonds about this on my talk page and will comment here. SoD contests the findings at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds that they were a sock of ZeroFaults/NuclearUmpf. That's fine, but that was the ArbCom's decision, and quite frankly I don't think we should rehash it here. Rather than focus on whether or not SoD is ZF/NU, we should focus on the behavior of the user SevenofDiamonds and consider their request for an unblock.

I would support that request with some conditions. There is no doubt that SoD has written dozens of articles and thus contributed constructively to the encyclopedia. However they have also been mixed up in a number of rather contentious disputes centered around Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. Indeed this article (and perhaps some related ones) have been the source of all of SoD's troubles. That user has engaged in some uncivil behavior in the past (see here for example, and there might be some stuff under the account I Write Stuff, but nothing egregious unless I'm missing something). I would suggest that it would be reasonable for SevenofDiamonds to agree to the following as a condition of an unblock:

1. Indefinite topic ban on Allegations of state terrorism by the United States and related articles (defined as articles to which the dispute from the main article has carried over, such as Guatemalan Civil War. SoD may feel their behavior was not disruptive enough to warrant a topic ban, but given that this is an unblock request and that this article has been the source of trouble this seems reasonable.
2. No interaction with User:MONGO, who presented the evidence at the original arbitration case. It's possible that this should be extended to other users as well (perhaps User:DHeyward), but at the least SoD should stay away from MONGO and articles he edits.
3. SoD picks one account, informs ArbCom of it, and agrees to edit only with that account. Other accounts would remain blocked.
4. I assume all of this would be logged at the original arbitration page, and perhaps a link to that would be necessary at SoD's user page so that editors and admins know the situation should future problems come up.

There might be other necessary conditions but this seems like a reasonable start. Violation of any of the terms would lead to another indef block. It seems obvious that SoD will continue to maintain that they are not ZF/NU, so asking them to admit to that will be a non-starter. Maybe they really are, or maybe ArbCom got it wrong. Like I said it perhaps does not actually make much difference either way. SoD likes to write articles and I'm fine with unblocking to let them do that, so long as they completely avoid the areas which have got them into trouble in the past (if the user is going to keep writing articles no matter what, it seems silly to make them post the articles on my talk page). The committee could even say they still stand by the decision in the SevenOfDiamonds case that the user is NuclearUmpf, but so long as the user agrees to stick to one account, avoid problem areas, and not cause disruption they can be unblocked and allowed to contribute. These are just initial ideas and there might well be other issues to consider. I have no idea if SevenofDiamonds is agreeable to these terms or not because we have not discussed this issue, the user just informed me of this request via a talk page message and I am apparently here as a "friendly" party.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Merzbow, I would not really have a problem with a waiting period but don't know what we gain by holding off for 6 months. If anything it makes more sense to have SoD agree to the above terms (and perhaps others) now rather than just letting them create more new accounts which could be disruptive. We should think in terms of what's actually workable. If we can find an agreement that lets SoD contribute but keeps them out of troubled areas then why not do it now? And we should definitely add William M. Connolley, yourself, and anyone else who wants to the list of people SoD should keep away from (within reason of course, we can't have a list of 20 people and I think it would only be a handful anyway - I think basically just a few people from the US State Terrorism article). Also if SoD was causing disruption in 9/11 articles a topic ban there would be justified as well. In general I'm quite open to broadening the restrictions I mention above.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I would add that, while I don't know if it was intentional or not, I find it amusing that SoD has created 42 articles. Given the popularity of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy here at Wikipedia that should surely count for something.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Update. Given the strong objections below (and particularly given DHeyward's comment - I had no idea that NU had engaged in real-world harassment published private information about a Wikipedia editor [amended per DHeyward comment below]) I now think it makes sense to, at the least, hold off on this. I would suggest that SevenofDiamonds go about 6 months without creating new accounts and without violating the ban with IP edits. I would note though, and perhaps the committee can provide some guidance on this, that SoD (using another account) posted on my user talk page informing me they intended to submit articles to my talk page in the hopes that I would post them. That would put me in a rather odd position. I would certainly never proxy edit for a banned user, but on the other hand if they are decent articles (which seems generally to have been the case with SoD in the past) it would seem somewhat absurd to not put them in article space. Even if ArbCom rejects SoD's request as I assume they will I'd appreciate some guidance on that issue.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Merzbow

I urge ArbCom to reject this motion for now. It is true that IWS/Seven can contribute good content, but he also cannot stop the disrupting and harassing activity that got him banned in the first place: see this ANI thread for an overview of examples of both during the Giovanni33 ArbCom case; he also has a vendetta against WMC, starting an RFC here, then following WMC to an article IWS has never edited to revert-war against him ([45], [46]), then warning WMC here; etc. His unwillingness to respect a legally imposed ArbCom remedy and instead sockpuppet prolifically also does not bode well for his ability to work within the community. My advice to him is to stay away for six months to a year to show his respect for this community, then appeal for a second chance, which must come in conjunction with a topic ban for the areas that he only disrupts and never contributes to (i.e. articles on U.S. foreign policy and 9/11), plus a ban on interaction with those he's harassed (i.e. Mongo, me, to start). Yes, basically BTP's remedies, but not now, because that would be a reward for his deception, disruption and socking. He needs to take a long time-out first.

To BTP: 9/11 was in reference to actions under the NuclearUmpf account, which was infamous for pushing conspiracy theories in that area; some SoD's early edits did the same. Anyways, we don't give into blackmail here. A threat to continue to create new accounts "unless" should not be met by capitulation, because then every other banned user is going to feel it's OK. The bottom line is that via his actions, he has already shown he does not feel the rules of the community apply to him, so why should we give him a second chance until he can demonstrate otherwise by, you know, not sockpuppeting for a while? - Merzbow (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

For those who believe the NuclearUmpf/SevenOfDiamonds connection was weak: I was not involved with that case, but looked at recently, and they are the same person. If we have to go through it again, we will, and with evidence five times as detailed as that presented in the original case, if necessary. I implore ArbCom not to put the community through this exercise again unless they have new and extremely convincing evidence. For just an example of what we would see, I noticed that as part of the Mantanmoreland ArbCom evidence, somebody ran an exhaustive computer analysis of time-day-edits between thousands of accounts, and their conclusion (with graphs) was "User:SevenOfDiamonds and User:NuclearUmpf had remarkably similar editing patterns, with 0.7758 correlation coefficient, which is a bit better than the 99th percentile." (link here). (I would also note that Mantanmoreland was indef'd today after further evidence came to light of socking.) - Merzbow (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick: I didn't know that WheezyF (talk · contribs), who it seems nobody disputes is a N.U. sock, was CU confirmed to be the same as TenOfSpades (talk · contribs) (and ElevenOfHearts (talk · contribs)), a painfully obvious SoD sock (see this post, which appears to be the first occurrence of SoD's now patented list of created articles + whine). This appears to be the smoking gun, no? - Merzbow (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK folks, we have WheezyF start editing for the first time on 2007-10-19, a day after SoD's last edit ever on 2007-10-18. WheezyF's interest in rap provides a key linkback to N.U. not present in SoD's contributions, while WheezyF's PoV on "Allegations..." is identical to SoD's (and an evolution from N.U.'s). The smoking gun has just turned into a smoking cannon. (Also, I've found it instructive that one of N.U.'s last edits was a pro-conspiracy edit to 9/11 conspiracy theories ([47]), while one of SoD's first was to the same article with the same POV ([48])). - Merzbow (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick: I didn't change diffs, I just added an additional point (9/11) to the original point (interest in rap - half of WheezyF's history, lots of N.U.'s). Both diffs are from the pro-9/11 conspiracy POV; the latter obviously so, the former removed an unfavorable comparison of 9/11 conspiracy belief to a belief in aliens. (N.U. was a 9/11 conspiracy pusher on many articles, SoD also has other edits to this effect). My overall thrust is that the (ahem) "Nuclear option" - an entirely new case whose purpose is to overturn the first case - should be looking far less attractive now. What should be done is for somebody - preferably an Arb - to propose and get voted on, in this case motion, a path back to legal editing for SoD, based on some of the restrictions already suggested. - Merzbow (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick, the gun is even more smoking than I thought. Look closely at the list of articles created claimed by TenOfDiamonds/WheezyF: [49] - I just noticed that it includes articles created both by N.U. and SoD (e.g., Kimberly Osorio is N.U., and Juan Carlos Ramírez Abadía is SoD). The only way out here for SoD is to claim WheezyF was created by N.U. specifically to frame him - a quite improbable scenario, given the account was made a day after SoD was blocked and continued editing for months. Nobody is going to believe N.U. came back from the dead after eight months (on the day after SoD's block) specifically to conduct an elaborate frameup campaign against an editor who joined Wikipedia four months after he left. - Merzbow (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick, N4GMiraflores was a follow-on account to WheezyF, not "of the same timeframe" - WheezyF edited from 10-19-2007 to 2-14-2008 (with a single edit at 2-22-2008), while N4GMiraflores/IWS edited from 2-12-2008 onward on a new ISP. - In other words, WheezyF almost precisely fills the gap between SoD's last edit and N4GMiraflores/IWS's first edit. If WheezyF was N.U. trying to sneak back in after SoD's ban, why did he all of a sudden decide to throw it away by announcing he was SoD (via TenOfDiamonds, plus editing "Allegations" with an identical PoV)? The alternative - that WheezyF was envisioned from the beginning to be a disposable account meant to last months, with hundreds of good edits, and frame SoD - is grassy-knoll material. Nothing adds up except for the plainest reading of the evidence - SoD is WheezyF, and thus N.U. - Merzbow (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a ten-day overlap, it's a two-day overlap with a single stray edit on the 22nd. And yes, SoD's PoV moved toward the inclusionist side, but it was still noticeably less so than G33, SPTS's, or yours - so it's certainly not "opposite"; and note that SoD and NU again share a pro-9/11 conspiracy PoV, so that didn't evolve. More importantly, WheezyF makes this moot - you cannot claim NU did not evolve his PoV if you want to also claim NU is WheezyF (because WheezyF's dozens of "Allegations..." edits were pro-inclusionist, basically indistinguishable from SoD's). Your only other way out is to claim NU as WheezyF deliberately faked all of those "Allegations..." edits to frame SoD - a grassy knoll theory that makes about as much sense as the real grassy knoll theory (as I've explained above). The logic here is pretty airtight. Anyways, I think we've both written more than enough, and are in danger of being forcibly refactored by a clerk, so this is my final statement on the matter. Do what you will. - Merzbow (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

I've not seen positive contributions by this editor which would outweigh the immense amount of time wasted in dealing with his independently disruptive socks. I'm also not clear on why we should condone the admitted evasion of an ArbCom-imposed ban, particularly when the editor in question continues to rationalize his ban evasion and deny any fault whatsoever. So User:I Write Stuff managed to edit constructively for one whole month before lapsing into disruptiveness. Have we sunk to the point where that's exceptionally praiseworhty? Editors able to contribute useful content without repeatedly running afoul of basic policy are not so rare that we need to waste more time on this. But admittedly, I'm grouchy at the moment since the USA lost 2-nil to England, so take that with a grain of salt. MastCell ^Talk 22:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Horologium

I would strongly recommend that the arbitrators reject this appeal. The almost continuous disruption caused by this account (under many names, the two most recent being User:I Write Stuff and User:SevenOfDiamonds) far, far outweighs the positive contributions. Sockpuppetry (especially of a particularly disruptive nature, as is the case here) is not something that can be excused, and allowing this user another chance opens the door to appeals of a similar nature. Does anyone really want to have to deal with JB196, WordBomb, LBHS Cheerleader, Pwok, Grawp, or any of many abusive sockpuppeteers asking for another chance, citing this as precedent? Horologium (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Giovanni33

It is reasonable to unblock this user. He has proven himself a net positive to the project through content creation, and I've seen many positive contributions. See his cooperative statement and evidence of his valuable contributions:[50]At a minimum, 42 excellent articles created by this user refutes those who claim, "no positive contributions." These many contributions are not negated by the possibility that may have been NuclearUmf in the past, and made poor choices then that led to him being banned back then. In so far as this possibility is true, it's only relevant to the extent that he replicates the problematic behaviors. He has not. At the very least his current conduct under the new accounts should weigh a lot more than previous conduct, if the original problems are no longer evident; he may not be perfect but he is certainly a lot better than many other established editors who we are not sanctioning in any manner. Thus, it's also a matter of equal protection and fairness for me, as well as pragmatic reasons. Ironically the "disruption" stems from the fact of his 'illegal' status here: it's the de jure insistence that he remain blocked and what follows from that fact, against his de-facto unblocked status that is the source of disruption. It is therefore counter productive in light of his actual positive contributions, which he will continue to make, and wants to make, no matter what. Administrative decisions, if they are in the best interest of the project, must be flexible and look at the bottom line: what is best for the project? Even if we believe that he was the indef.banned user (Nuclear), the new accounts were only banned on the basis of asserting such a link.

Also, if he is telling the truth about his original blocking based on mistaken socket-puppet conclusions, then I certainly can relate to that, and give him credit for proving himself loyal to the project inspite and despite the rules. It's a classic and ultimate case of IAR being put into practice. That is an area that is problematic, but the best way to deal with it is to make an evaluation on pragmatic grounds (what IAR was meant for).

Lastly, I want to point out that SevenOfDiamonds was not indef.blocked/banned by his Arbcom case. In fact, arbcom, in their wisdom, did NOT proscribe any remedy. They simply concluded that given the standard of 'more likely than not," one account was the other. They did not feel a need to issue any restrictions, or take any punitive measures. It was up to any admin to either feel a block was then warranted, or for him to be left in peace to edit. At this state, I agree with BTP, that it doesn't matter if SOD was Nuclear or not, or how likely he was, etc. Conditions should be ratified so as to codify a situation with the aim of minimizing as much disruption as possible while maximizing the positive. To me this means an unblock, perhaps with conditions, and for his opponents to reciprocate in abstaining from any uncivil interaction against him moving forward. If he wants to write articles, then who are we to stop him? To do so is to elevate form above substance, to raise the letter of the law above its spirit. Given the possibility that he should never have been banned in the first place, to continue to want him blocked no matter what strikes me as an irrational fetish of the rules for the sake of the rules.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to User:B. It is true he was circumventing a ban but notice he was doing it to prove a positive point, not a negative one, i.e. not to defy or disrespect arbcom or their authority, but to prove he was not disruptive as claimed, but a valuable contributor so he could make an appeal to them afterwards. Note he explains his reasons here, that he intended to request for the appeal afterwards, and does so now:[51]. This is not an act of a vandal/defiant rogue element that needs to be stomped out at all costs. Quite the contrary. Each case must be looked at concretely on its own merits so that does not give a green light to just anyone doing this; it goes without saying its risky at best. But intentions seem clear here and I feel intentions do count, even if it was flawed tactically.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

DHeyward's allegation about his real name does not appear to be truthful to me, so I want to respond. First of all, I don't know what his real name is, nor do I care to know. I would never tolerate any harassment of anyone, either. To insinuate that I've done something like that is quite wrong.

DHeyward, the only thing I do know is that you have two user names, an old one and the new one. I have provided both before simply so that people know who I'm talking about. The reason for this is because you are known by your old user name more so, such as on the Allegations article, where under your old user name you've blanked sections a lot, edit-warred. I also know you had a block log that is no longer shown with your new account. Your past behaviors there rather poor on that article under the old account; the new user name, though, is clean from those misbehaviors, and gives you a face-lift. I also note you're less aggressive. So that is why I link them, so people know who we are talking about. It has nothing to do with what your real name is.

Also, you have never send me a message informing me of the situation, if your old user name was to be mentioned. The only time, and the first time I realized you did not want this displayed is just recently when I provided both user names in my arbcom case. I also know that both user names are not a secret and you specifically requested a change of your user name, not because you were trying to hide your real name because people were harassing you, but because you wanted to have your new user name be your real name--the one that you use now. I refer to this statement of yours about it: [52]. So your claim now makes no sense. I had just assumed you wanted to use your real name, as you stated, or wanted to disassociate your past behaviors linked to your previous user name, or your posts on conservative forums, etc. If you are mischaracterizing what I've done, your allegations against SevenOfDiamonds in the same vein are called into question.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:B

I am completely uninvolved in this case and only tangentially followed it. I encourage arbcom to reject it because it would reward circumventing a ban. If a banned user abides by the ban, then apologizes for whatever issues led to their ban, and promises not to repeat their transgressions, then I'm all for second chances. But someone who does not abide by the terms of the ban and gets caught socking should not be permitted to return. --B (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:Rlevse

Banned means he's not allowed to edit. This is a sock of a banned user. Period. And the ban was partly for socking. Rewarding that behavior is counterproductive. Too much time has been wasted on this user already. Let's not do it again. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Reply to the email situation--While I have no idea what is in the email that was sent to arbcom, the fact remains that SoD intentionally evaded their ban. That is not the sort of behavior we should be rewarding. SoD should have brought this up first, rather than circumventing things and then saying "see I'm not so bad afterall". — Rlevse • Talk • 20:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:DHeyward

User:NuclearUmpf published my real name, employer and other personal information. He did it both on and off wiki in a malicious manner. Other editors commenting here have continued to make sure that the stalking continues (notably Giovanni33 and Inclusionist). My employer was contacted because of that. I was cyber stalked because of that. It continues on sites such as WR today. He should not be allowed to return and contribute in any way either as sockpuppets or as himself. --DHeyward (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to BTP: I don't know that NU was the one who did the actual harassment. He is the one who published the material that the harassers used. The only reason to publish that information was to aid the harassment. --DHeyward (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

response to Giovanni33: Here's my block log. In total. Only Tyrenius's block wasn't considered a mistake (I said a 9/11 truther was lying on a user's talk page). None for the "allegations" article as you seem to not be in command of any factual evidence. And your claim of ignorance and innocence is not credible either.

• 2:20, September 24, 2006 Tyrenius (Talk | contribs) blocked with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Defamatory comment after warning)
• 13:16, April 22, 2006 Curps (Talk | contribs) unblocked ‎ (not)
• 11:38, April 22, 2006 Curps (Talk | contribs) blocked with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (vandalism)
• 18:40, March 27, 2006 Ruud Koot (Talk | contribs) unblocked (after reviewing it appears Tbeatty made only three reverts)
• 17:01, March 27, 2006 Gamaliel (Talk | contribs) unblocked (appears to be an incorrect 3rr block)
• 19:02, March 26, 2006 Ruud Koot (Talk | contribs) blocked with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (3rr vio at Union of Concerned Scientists)

--DHeyward (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:William M. Connolley

This is a repeated sock abuser. Reject as a waste of time, and to judge from the state of the G33 case, you're short of time William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Guettarda

While I am not familiar with the underlying case, I would challenge Kendrick's assertion that IWS is a "fine" contributor - his behaviour has been problematic for a while. Not ban-worthy in and of itself, but needlessly combative. The suggestion that he has reformed doesn't ring true. Guettarda (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Rocksanddirt

The original arb finding that Sevenofdiamonds was Nucularumpf (or whatever) was IMO very weak. The evidence was substantially weaker that the recent evidence regarding Mantanmoreland, which the committee felt was uncompelling. While the harrassment by numf is NOT OK, BY ANY STRETCH, I'm not sure that SoD is the same person. I would ask the committee to review the finding. If appropriate to unban, I think a topic ban on 9-11 and similar conspiracy articles would be appropriate as SoD seemed to struggle with appropriate behavior in that relm (not substantially worse than others, but still). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Pokipsy76

I find just incredible that this user was indefinitely banned because arbitrators thought "it is more likely than not" that he was a sockpuppet of another.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

I stated at the RFAr case that SevenOfDiamonds would return under a new name anyway since it was pretty obvious that he had already been banned or blocked as NuclearUmph/Zer0faults previously and he has created numerous other socks to evade, edit war and to avoid a 3RR violation.[53] His actions as SevenOfDiamonds in terms of civil discourse also left much to be desired. He has a history of wikistalking his adversaries[54], posting other's real life information and being a general pain in the arse, frankly. That said, I also stated I was a reluctant participant in the 7OD case orginally precisely since I knew it would be a waste of time overall...as is this nonsense...since he knows fully that he can return anytime he wants and has proven this time and again.--MONGO 04:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Orderinchaos

Two ideas here - blocking should be preventative, not punitive; and indefinite does not mean infinite. If this editor is capable of working within our norms and improving the encyclopaedia, after time served, I have no problem with his return, although given past activity it may be advisable for ArbCom to either require a notice to be placed on his talk page, or to impose some kind of parole on the offences which brought him to the attention of the community. As per my comments at Poetlister incident, there is no need to revisit the old facts - unblocking now does not say the old offences did not occur or that they weren't serious enough to demand blocking at that time, just as parole from prison on good behaviour does not mean the murder or burglary did not take place. (It may well not have but that's not a decision for us to make here.) Orderinchaos 05:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by AuburnPilot

I'd just like to reiterate what I said in the SOD case, that I don't believe SevenOfDiamonds is/was a sock of NuclearUmpf. The evidence presented was cherry-picked, ignored the majority of SOD's contributions, and the case as a whole was an embarrassment (See my comment during the case for more). A productive editor was blocked, not because he was the reincarnation of a banned editor, but because one editor cherry-picked evidence that made it look like he might be. I believe the case should be revisited, and SOD should be allowed to return. Ban him from interacting with certain editors if it you must, but a total ban doesn't make sense. - auburnpilot talk 01:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I am fully in accord with Rlevse on this issue. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• On the basis of a detailed email that came to the ArbCom, I feel we should look properly at this matter. Assuming a request is posted, I'd vote to accept a case. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• The email from user:SevenOfDiamonds is promissing and sincere. Contributions look good. However, the editor should have first contacted the ArbCom for a ban appeal. I am concerned by the RfC started on user:William M. Connolley, the involvement in the user:Giovanni33 ArbCom case, fishing user:Merzbow with CU. I am more concerned by the creation of multiple accounts (are they needed?). I am concerned by all that. A lot of good process is missing in here. We can discuss conditions of return if a proper ban appeal is filed but I don't see the need for one at the moment. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • To user:Kendrick7... The butterfly counts not months but moments, and has time enough. - Rabindranath Tagore -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Kendrick, I am unconvinced myself that SoD and NuclearUmpf are the same. You can accept IWriteStuff and other accounts' contributions even though they were made under block evasion. However, the fact that SoD put themselves into regular disputes again while using IWriteStuff is unacceptable. I also don't understand the need for creating multiple accounts even tough it is technically legitimate in this case. Yes, it is certainly about time. I prefer SoD do as the butterfly and not count months or days. It'd be about the moment SoD decides to embrace a less combative behavior. I hope it is a fair deal. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• I would just as soon not reward banned editors for evading their bans. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• I am far from convinced that SevenOfDiamonds is the same person as NuclearUmpf (the ArbCom, by a vote of 4-1, only ruled that "it is more likely than not"). Moreover the ensuing contributions, though not problem free, have been substantial and constructive. I'm inclined to allow this editor to continue editing, perhaps with restrictions. Paul August ☎ 15:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

---

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

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

• Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Matthead (talk · contribs)

Statement by Moreschi

As I think WP:AE currently shows nicely, the Eastern Europe flamewars cannot be dealt with by the current provisions of the Digwuren case. At any rate, I cannot cope, and I don't think anyone else can either. Isolating civility in the way the case does has simply encouraged users to bait other users in an effort to get their opponents put on civility supervision and blocked. We need discretionary sanctions WP:ARBMAC style to counter this, though with a good definition of the area of conflict (I would suggest, at the least, that it covers Polish-German disputes, in addition to Polish-Russian and articles relating to the Baltic states and Ukraine). Best, Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see User:Moreschi/The Plague/Useful links for a list of EE-related ArbCom cases. The problem goes back years, and is easily comparable to other problematic areas such as Arab-Israeli, Balkans, or India-Pakistan. At the moment a whole pile of revert-warriors need to be revert-paroled, some incorrigible trolls topic-banned, and some baiters blocked. The current Digwuren case does not allow for this to happen. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Matthead

I had opened at case at WP:AE, after which User:Molobo opened two against me 1st (closed) and 2nd, trying to take advantage that I had been added quickly to the Digwuren list shortly after it was opened, and got immediately blocked, while he and well known other editors have, well, since been overlooked somehow? I perceive the composition of the list as lopsided and doubt that Eastern Europe flamewars are conducted one way. Wikipedia has 5 pillars, of which "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" and "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view" are the first two, and arguably the most important ones, compared to "Wikipedia has a code of conduct" as fourth. Thus, as we try to write an encyclopedia, I think it is necessary that much more attention is given to the content that editors add or remove, rather than to civility or the lack thereof, or the skill with which some editors can provoke uncivil responses while getting judged civil themselves. For example, Molobo repeatedly denied that there was a by-election to the Polish parliament in 1920 [55] [56] [57] [58] with support by another well known user [59] [60], calling it a German hoax also on talk, and stubbornly refused to acknowledge that after the Versailles Treaty made Soldau/Dzialdowo Polish, a by-election was held, which apparently is also stated on pl-wiki (which he repeatedly rejects, eg. with no source in Polish wikipedia and I can just as well edit that article that Martians invaded Działdowo in 1920. They were no elections in 1920 in Poland to Sejm. Case closed.). If I had not fixed it, the misinformation "A German author claims that after the town was ceded to Poland a large part of German inhabitants left the area but the candidate of the German Party, Ernst Barczewski, was elected to the Sejm with 74,6 % of votes in 1920, although no Sejm elections took place at the time" would probably still remain. Also, on Talk:Karkonosze, he repeatedly made false claims, denying that both Encyclopedia Britannica and Opera Corcontica use Giant Mountains rather than Karkonosze. In both cases, he Refused to 'get the point' despite other editors providing evidence that the was wrong, very wrong. Is such behavior acceptable? Molobo almost got permabanned two years ago. He returned after his one year block, and seemingly was allowed to do as he pleases since. -- Matthead  Discuß   02:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Piotrus' statement: it was Piotrus who made the most effective use of the new Digwuren case as soon as October 2007. It was him who had produced (actively?) "a big list" of (not so clear) diffs collected until December to take advantage of the restrictions, and managed to have Dr. Dan listed as the very first extension to the list, with Dr. Dan inflaming Eastern European topics. Soon, he got me, too, with Another Eastern European spat (originally titled Another Eastern European flamer, against which Dr.Dan protested). On the other hand, it indeed "is very, very difficult to get a user on the Digwuren's warning list" when he defends him, like in Darwinek's case. And as Piotrus and others know very well, it is hardly a coincidence that edits "will be reverted by more numerous" users who are listening to Gadu Gadu instant messenger. One of the biggest weaknesses of Wikipedia policies is that they treat editors as isolated individuals, especially in 3RR cases, while highly questionable forms of cooperations are overlooked, ignored, or denied. -- Matthead  Discuß   09:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Relata refero

There is absolutely no doubt that this is required. My involvement in EE issues is limited to the Worst Article On Wikipedia and on responding to various RfCs and posts on noticeboards - perhaps half a dozen articles altogether. It would be more except for the (a) blatant wikilawyering and misrepresentation of sources that happens as a matter of course and (b) outright baiting and misapplication of civility. I'm not one of those who believes that civility is pointless when dealing with POV-pushers, but what we have in these articles is that any statement of fact - "that source is obviously irrelevant" - is met with head-shaking reminders to be civil in the hope that some form ArbCom-mandated sanction will be required.

As a general rule, any section of the 'pedia permanently plagued with clashing historical narratives requires our most stringent controls. These are more difficult to administer and keep clean, because of the free availability and difficulty in recognising dubious sourcing, than the pseudoscience/scientific consensus articles that people have wailing conniptions about all over the noticeboards. Not to mention there are fewer people able and willing to keep an eye on it, and its much tougher to recognise POV-pushing....

If ArbCom suggests that I present a few diffs of the sort of occasion where (a) civility restrictions have led to baiting and (b) discretionary sanctions would have been helpful - just from my own experience - I am willing to. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Rlevse

I endorses this request. Many of the long-term problematic areas of wiki need strong and flexible remedies. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Biophys

"Blocks of up to one year" on discretion of a single uninvolved administrator... Such drastic measured could only be used for users with long blocking history (say 6+ blocks). Besides, the area of conflict should be clearly defined. I asked previously if any Russia-related subjects belong to Digwuren case, but there was no answer. I trust Moreschi judgement, but we need some safeguards if this is adopted as a general policy.Biophys (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also trust opinion of Martintg and Piotrus as leading content editors on the Baltic states and Poland articles. If they think the additional sanctions would be unhelpful, let's not introduce the sanctions, at least on the Baltics and Poland-related subjects.Biophys (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

However Alex Bakharev, who mostly edits articles on Russian subjects, believes that additional sanctions would be helpful (see his comment below). Well, perhaps one should indeed define the area of conflict as anything related to the Russian politics and history rather than "Eastern European subjects" where good content editors Martintg and Piotrus argue against the sanctions. I am not quite sure.Biophys (talk) 03:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Martintg

There is no justification to extend discretionary sanctions to other topic areas such as the Polish/Russian articles, Ukraine or particularly the Baltic states. An examination of WP:ANI and other boards will reveal that these areas are relatively harmonious, and the existing mechanisms such as 3RR are working well.

A similar motion to impose discretionary sanctions across all of Easter Europe, on the back of a single 3RR violation in that case, was attempted back in February, but was archived due to lack of interest and some important questions of scope remaining unanswered [61]

So what has happened since February? A scan through the WP:AE archives reveals only a small number of cases reported to the AE board have anything actually to do with Eastern Europe. Out of 126 cases since February, only 4 are EE related, particularly Poland, and of those 4, 3 are concerned with Matthead [62],[63],[64]

Looking at the Digwuren enforcement provision indicates no utilisation of that remedy since April, despite Matthead being put on notice in January and blocked and three recent reports to WP:AE have gone unactioned, indicated above.

Both Moreschi and Rlevse have failed to adequately use the current remedies available to them. What is the point of proposing additional discretionary sanctions (with arbitrary blocks of up to one year) across all of EE, if they are unwilling or too timid to use existing remedies and impose a simple 24 hour block against an individual, despite it being brought to WP:AE three times in the last month?

Experience has shown that in the case of EE, disruption is usually caused by one or two individuals, and if they are banned/blocked harmony quickly returns. This is clearly a case concerning the behaviour of an individual and has no relevance to any other topic areas like Ukraine, Poland/Russia or the Baltic States. Massive intervention that risks totally chilling a broad subject area is not required, particularly when precise targeted action is more than sufficient. Martintg (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Martintg on email to refactor his statement in which he seems to single out me as trouble maker, based on what is a false perception. It was me who filed this to bring attention to an edit war in which I was not involved (just witnessing). In that thread, user Molobo attacked me, then filed not one, but two requests against me, repeating the same statements. All that within less than 24 hours. And that is now held against me? -- Matthead  Discuß   16:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intend to single anyone out, I was attempting to convey that the current remedies and mechanisms are sufficient for admins to do their job. Who attacked who first is not at issue here, but requesting the imposition of draconian sanctions across a vast heterogeneous area of Wikipedia on the back of a personality clash between yourself and Molobo is. Can't you two work out your differences over a beer or something? It certainly has nothing to do with the Baltic states, so I don't see why additional remedies would be required. Martintg (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You still single me out, and in your original statement, you even asked why admins are unwilling to impose a simple 24 hour block against me. If you are neutral, I urge you to remove my name, and the diffs involving me, from your statement above - if you do not, I have to conclude that you side with Molobo against me, endorsing and essentially repeating his attacks. -- Matthead  Discuß   08:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Alex Bakharev contends the current sanction encourages editors to "bait" other parties into civility violations. If this is the case, then discretionary sanctions will be an even bigger encouragement to bait editors into violation, since it only requires the discretion of a single uninvolved admin and the heavy threat of desysoping other admins who may overturn a sanction. A very profitable outcome to any baiter compared with the current situation. Arguing for additional sanctions across all Eastern European articles because of a dispute about some German/Polish topic is akin to arguing for discretionary sanctions across all North American related articles because of disruption in some US related article like 9/11. I'm sure those editing Canadian or Mexican topics would not be happy about that prospect. Martintg (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Looking at User:Moreschi/The Plague/Useful links for a list of EE-related ArbCom cases, we see that there were 6 cases in 2007 (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anonimu doesn't count, as discussed here), but zero in the first half of 2008. This is a testament to the improvement that has been made since 2007, and thus no comparison to other problematic areas such as Arab-Israeli, for example, which has had already 2 Arbcom cases in 2008 so far. If Moreschi believes there are a "whole pile of revert-warriors need to be revert-paroled, some incorrigible trolls topic-banned, and some baiters blocked", he should name them here, as I know of none in the Baltic states topic area that requires the imposition of addtitional discretionary sanctions. I'm not aware of issues in the areas either, e.g. like Ukraine, certainly nothing serious enough to warrant reporting to ANI or other boards. Martintg (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Piotrus

For the most part I agree with Marting. I don't think that CE/EE area is much more inflamed then many others; we just have a few persistent trolls and borderline disruptive users. We have weeks of quiet punctuated by an occasional week when one of them "wakes up" and disrupts an article or two, then goes away after he learns again that such disruption will be reverted by more numerous, neutral editors. That said, it is a fact that such storms are stressful and may result in a good editor taking a long wikibreak or even permanently leaving, fed up with flaming and harassment. It is very, very difficult to get a user on the Digwuren's warning list and later, blocked - even if one produces a big list of very clear diffs you get the usual "random admin decision", usually erring on the case of 'let's give him another chance' or 'he was warned few month ago and inactive recently, so let's just warn him again'. And certainly, other admins may be to timid or afraid to apply the remedy to experienced editors who have proven their skills with wikilawyering. Thus I do think that the Digwuren sanction ended up being relatively pointless. Just as before, what we need are a few blocks (or topical ban - see who creates little to no content but flames and revert wars) - and the problem would cease to exist. Perhaps some conclusions from this debate may prove useful in dealing with this problem once and for all.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Alex Bakharev (talk)

I agree with Moreschi, the Digwuren sanction encourage editors to bite other parties into the civilty violations and does not help to solve the underlying problem that many editors consider Eastern European articles as battleground and soapbox instead and insert deliberately inflammatory edits to the articles instead of striving to present some balanced view points Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I have recused myself once and I believe that at least I can say that this area needs more strict measures. I also agree with user:Biophys though the safeguards come usually with the pack. What Moreschi is asking about is the green light from the ArbCom. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It must be reminded that this is not a place for discussions as it is mentioned on top of this page. It doesn't help a lot. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• My response here is the same one that I made in regards to the identical request in the Martinphi-ScienceApologist case below: I'll be happy to move for discretionary sanctions here once the Homeopathy case closes and we know which version of the sanctions is preferred. Kirill ^(prof) 00:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Request to amend prior case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist

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

• Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); [65]

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

MartinPhi has begun editing WP:CIVIL in ways that make it more strongly prejudicial to his opponents. He mentions ScienceApologist as one of the users he wants it to come down more strongly on:

“ Yes, he said it very well indeed. And thanks for archiving (: For many months I have watched people poison the atmosphere, and, for example, call certain "groups of people" who just happened to be present, stuff like "moronic" "woo-woos" "crazies" "nutcases" etc. It has NOT been dealt with. In fact in the case on one user it has not been dealt with even after ArbCom sanctions about civility ”

The bolding is Martinphi's, and for anyone with even a passing knowledge of MartinPhi-ScienceApologist, it's obvious who he's referring to in that sentence.

See also [66] (wants certain words to be "actionable" in themselves.) [67] List of his highly-biased examples of presumably actionable words, including, of all things, "POV-pusher"] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ACivility&diff=207794751&oldid=207779327 (Argues against letting other people know editing of the page is ongoing, because people who are against his views might be brought in)

I have spoken to him on his talk page: [68] his response was to ask me:

“ Why didn't you ask ScienceApologist not to edit CIV? ”

ScienceApologist's only edits to WP:CIV were to revert Martinphi's POV pushing on that page, as far as I can tell, and thhe last one was over a week ago. Martinphi is still editing today.

To Martinphi: Your edit by SA is from 17 April, his last one to WP:CIV is 23 April, and the number is fairly small. Only one comment from him is on the current talk page, and it's from 18 April. If you want Science Apologist cautioned, you have to actually tell someone when it happens, not expect them to do it retrospectively two weeks later. You, however, have been much more visibly active on both the policy page and the talk page for several weeks (SA's edit to mainspace seem entirely devoted to reverting additions by you), and mention him as a major reason for your changes on the talk page. The evidence against you is far stronger. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

To Tom Butler: Science Apologist has not come out and said that he is editing the pages to get at Martinphi, but the reverse situation has occured. As for Littleolive oil, I apologise, I did not know how to investigate and get at the truth, so mentioned a preliminary observation that I probably shouldn't have. I have deleted it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Martinphi is still one of the most active people on WP:CIV, so it might be nice to have some statement on whether that's appropriate soon. If it is, fine, but I'd like to hear some statement on that soon. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Rlevse

This editing of WP:CIVIL is being done by three sides, so let's not look at just one. The three sides are: pro-science, pro-pseudoscience, and a few neutrals. Of course, it's merely one facet of the larger debate which currently has at least three separate threads going in various places at arbcom. I say again, serious most stringent remedies need to be put in place on this area quickly. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Martinphi

I have edited CIV, and participated on the talk page, and my experience is in one of the most uncivil parts of Wikipedia- the paranormal. My experience has given me an excellent perspective for editing that page. Where would an editor gain experience needed to edit CIV? At articles where everyone gets along? The paranormal involves many editors who are highly uncivil, for example calling people or groups "deletionists," "believers in scientism" "true believers," "nutcases," or morons." The Arbitrators have already been treated to a large amount of evidence on this. So I'll just say that no, SA is an Archetypal case, but not by far the only one. SA also edited CIV, removing exactly the stuff he often does [69]. Shoemaker didn't warn him, even when I asked why he only warned me, claiming SA isn't editing CIV.[70] I hadn't been editing there recently till he called my attention to it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker says:

"Science Apologist has not come out and said that he is editing the pages to get at Martinphi, but the reverse situation has occured."

Never said that. Mentioned him as an extreme case. This is a serious misrepresentation, AKA false evidence. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Public statement

I am getting EXTREMELY TIRED of people calling me things like "pro pseudoscience" sometimes in a subtle way as I believe Rlevse does above (if I'm wrong, you can stop reading now). If Rlevse can find ONE INSTANCE where I have been pro pseudoscience, I would like to see it. I would immediately take it back. I feel very insulted that someone like Rlevse would say that to me, as I strive to always be on the side of good sourcing and science (see recent history of Reiki). If I'm wrong, and Rlevse feels I'm one of the neutrals, I'd like him to tell me so. Otherwise, I would like him to stop insulting me by characterizing me in front of the ArbCom as pro-pseudoscience.

But I see absolutely no reason why I should put up with insults from an ArbCom clerk on this page. I expect insults from SA and his friends, but I would expect that an ArbCom clerk would be neutral, or at least get his facts straight. Or, if there is a legitimate difference of opinion, that he would be able to provide diffs to support such a characterization. Either he can't, or I really need to rethink my editing on Wikipedia. But at the very least, why has Rlevse drunk the poisoned rhetoric that SA and company spew about my supposed pseudoscientific POV?

Why am I putting this here? Because I want to make a public statement which the ArbCom members themselves might read: stop characterizing me that way, or support it with evidence. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tom Butler

This is a frivolous complaint. Shoemaker's Holiday is the editor who recently used the "Be Bold" excuse to hijack the Civility article with out discussing his massive changes. I can see now that his boldness has turned to advocacy for ScienceApologist's desire to water down civility so that it is acceptable for him to call people a moron[71]. In fact, SA is the one who has had to be reverted because he repeatedly removed "moron" from the article where it was used as an example of incivility [72].

Rlevse is correct in that there are several viewpoint being expressed, and Martinphi's is just one. Martin has also not shown a determination to resist consensus as you have.

Holiday, I would be careful about meatpuppet accusations without bringing evidence. Tom Butler (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Antelan

Given the situation between ScienceApologist and Martinphi, it is tragic, but probably predictable, that the argument has now moved up to the policy level. Regardless of the outcome, I would hope that Martinphi would not change the policy in an attempt to use his changes as a weapon against ScienceApologist, and vice versa. Antelan^talk 17:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Vassyana

It may be appropriate for both editors to be prohibited from making edits to policies and guidelines in any way related to their disputes over the rules, if the arbs believe there is a stong possibility their rules edits may be related to their ongoing disputes. It's OK for people to have disagreements over interpretation of the rules, but it's not at all OK to bring that dispute into live policy. I see no indication that either user should be prohibited from contributing to the talk pages of those policies and guidelines. I don't see any reason to believe that either editor expressing their opinion and receiving feedback on the talk page should be a problem. Just a thought. *hands out salt grains* Vassyana (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would ask the arbitrators to review WP:FRINGE, both the current dispute and the general history of the guideline. It appears to often be a proxy battleground for the opposing sides in this general dispute, with some editors ignoring the requirements of consensus and general open collegial editing. Vassyana (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Dreadstar

Since this subject has been raised, I think it may be helpful if ArbCom could clarify whether or not a number of SA’s comments violate his ArbCom restrictions on Civility and Assuming Good Faith, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist restricted. He is constantly being rude and insulting to editors he disagrees with, this continues despite many WP:AE reports (some of them frivolous, but some are very legitimate examples of SA violating his ArbCom restrictions). In virtually all the blocks, admins who seem to back his editing style push to have him unblocked or unblock him directly, sometimes against the consensus and objections of other Admins and editors, such as this.

Are ScienceApologist's edits uncivil, or are they acceptable behavior? Here are some examples; I know there are a lot, but there's really no single edit that is truly damning, it's the overall pattern, a constant stream of abusive, uncivil comments directed at his opponents: [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84]. Dreadstar † 03:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

I'm always uncomfortable when editors involved in an interpersonal dispute modify core policy pages in a way which will presumably affect that dispute. When an editor has a history as... colorful... as Martin's, that's doubly true. Edits such as this, in which he adds several terms used by ScienceApologist in the context of creating a definition of "actionable" incivility, suggest a clear connection. I would be happier if Martin would restrict himself to discussion on the policy talk page rather than editing the policy directly. The same would go for ScienceApologist. I don't think that contentious editors pursuing a personal battle make good policy. But that's just me. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Raymond arritt

I broadly agree with the statement by Rlevse above. The best outcome would be if policy pages had wider scrutiny that was representative of the community as a whole. Does it bother anyone else that every policy describes itself as "a widely accepted standard" when in fact they are heavily influenced by battles between a very few editors? Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

<drive by comment> You could say the same about some articles... </drive by comment> Carcharoth (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Woonpton

I couldn't find an empty template, so I just copied the one above, hope that's acceptable.

I've been surprised and dismayed and a little confused, between reading the "Governance Reform" discussion where it seems to be agreed that it's very difficult to change policy even when there is consensus in the entire community, to find how easily a few people can change policy willy nilly as in this case, simply by editing policy pages. But I wouldn't characterize the current dispute as a battle between "pro-science" and "pseudoscience" editors per se; instead I would say what is happening is that a few people are trying to change the policy to broaden the definition of incivility, and a few other people are (rightly, in my opinion) reverting it back to the status quo. I don't see the reverters as "changing policy" to further an agenda, but simply respecting the principle that policy should only be changed with broad community consensus. Woonpton (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I agree that it would be better that policy pages - and, especially, such crucial ones as this - were better monitored and had a wider gamut of participation. However, I don't see that, beyond exhorting greater involvement by the community at large, there is much that the Committee can usefully do. James F. (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Editing core policies should be done only on a full and mature consideration of the full circumstances and never because of a single case, especially not one in which the user making the edit was involved. However, no arbitration committee resolution is needed on this, because contentious edits to core policies are fundamentally disruptive and editors who persistently disrupt can be blocked by any administrator. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Request to amend: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request: The list of users in affected areas is too large to collect, list and notify conveniently. I will place notices of this request, so the community as a whole is aware, on the village pump,[85] administrators' noticeboard,[86] and fringe theory noticeboard.[87] If another editor believes there is a specific user or another on-wiki forum that should receive notice, they should feel free to drop a link to them.

Statement by Vassyana

I would like to request that ArbCom explicitly permit discretionary sanctions on all pseudoscience and alternative science topics, broadly construed, similar to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions. See here, here, here, here, here, here and here. That is only the recent threads, only from the AE noticeboard, only involving a very limited number of users involved in the broader dispute. I believe ArbCom explicitly endorsing discretionary sanctions would empower and embolden sysops and the community to resolve these long-standing issues, once and for all. Vassyana (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply about potential admin abuse

Regarding the concerns about potential admin abuse, I would expect that if ArbCom accepted this request that they would be open to reviewing complaints about related admin abuse. I believe this would increase the oversight and reduce the potential abuse of sysop discretion. Sysops would have to be accoutable for their actions.

I believe relying on more than common sense for the definition of "uninvolved" will only lead to wikilawyering. All of the proposed definitions I've seen essentially leave massive loopholes that anyone looking to game the system or skirt the rules could use. If there is a disagreement about whether an administrator is involved or not, a brief community discussion or appeal to ArbCom should suffice. I simply fail to see the point of creating a limited definition prone to gaming, which would require other admins and the community to employ their natural power of reason regardless. Vassyana (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Neal's oppose, I simply cannot understand that point of view, though I have tried. We permit administrators to impose full site blocks without an expiration date at their discretion. I fail to see how giving administrators lessor options (such as a topic ban instead of a full block) in long-disputed areas with persistant conduct problems would increase abuse potential. I should additionally note that we're discussing long-term problems, involving users who either know better by know or almost assuredly are never going to get it, not newbies who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Vassyana (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may comment directly (if not you can move this to my section). I'm more concerned about abuse-through-misunderstanding rather than abuse-abuse. It's not always clear what's neutral, and the discretionary sanctions designed for Homeopathy and the Palestine-Israeli issue are designed for narrow subjects. A broader subject category, like all pseudoscience/alternative science, becomes muddled with lots of other issues (see my statement). The discretionary sanctions for the narrow topics say any percieved "[failure] to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia", by any admin who feels strongly about it. There's lots of admins who feel strongly about their interpretation of NPOV, whether they're involved or not, and especially if they're involved in the broader discussions though not technically involved in the given page at the given time. The discretionary sanctions don't discriminate between bad editor practices like incivility, edit warring, etc. and good faith content disputes. Good faith content disputes can easily be seen as a "conduct problem", as that happens all the time. Maybe I am making a mountain out of a molehill, but hopefully you can see where the concern comes from. On a side-note, if we already have tools available for getting problem editors off these articles, why aren't they already banned? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply about community discussion

Requesting or advocating that such discretionary empowerment be limited to consensus discussions is essentially the same as opposing this request. The community already has the power to impose bans and other sanctions via community discussion. I tend to think that over time, using such a method will only open up another battleground. Enforcement threads have already become another place to argue for the disputants in heated areas. I shudder to think what kind of response would be received after the first couple of sanction discussions make it "real" to such parties. (For an example, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive409#User:Mccready_-_endless.2C_disruptive.2C_repetitive_edit_warring.)

Regarding the concern about appeals, they should generally be appealable like any other admin action enforcing ArbCom sanctions: 1) Post to AN to ask other admins to review it. 2) Appeal to ArbCom. Excessive, repeated or otherwise disruptive series of appeals are not appeals at all; they are stumping and should be treated by another uninvolved administrator as disruptive. Vassyana (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to concerns about scope

What if the scope were limited to areas and users that have severe long-running and/or perpetually recurring behavioral issues? I believe that would keep the scope from being too broad or limited. Vassyana (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Rlevse

I heartily endorse this request for stronger measures re editors on both sides of this issue. More details to follow. I'll be on wiki break much of this weekend. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Both sides throw reports at WP:AE, trying to see what will stick. Many admins are wary to block because of fears another admin that is sympathetic to the blockee will unblock. The remedies in place are not working and something has to be done about it. There are also significant agreements among admins about what constitutes civility. This leads to users who have mastered the art of being borderline incivil and getting away with it for years. A firm policy about this sort of incivility being blockable, long term if necessary, need to be put in place. Copied from my comment at WP:AE archive 20..."Closing comment...enough already. This has descended into a finger-pointing complaint session by both sides. Before writing anything about someone else, ask "Would I want to be called that?". If not, don't write it. If it's borderline don't write it-this would stop all the attempts here where users throw up a report just to see what sticks; only truly legit reports would get filed if this were to occur. For example, maybe you wouldn't mind being called "braindead", but it would offend a lot of people. Also, you (you as in everyone, both sides) may consider your efforts on wiki non-POV, but others may not. If everyone involved here would take a step back, take a deep breath, and admit that the world of wiki is plenty big for everyone, things would be a lot calmer. These types of disputes start and go on and on when no one allows room for the other side. I see this not only in the pseudoscience area, but Mid-East, East Europe, Sri Lanka, etc disputes. On top of all this, there's about disagreement about the civility here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)"...Something has to be done here, this long term situation is highly divisive to the encyclopedic and takes way too admin effort to keep it within harmonic editing boundaries. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Nealparr

Sure, if by "uninvolved administrator" you mean administrators not involved in "pseudoscience and alternative science topics, broadly construed" as a whole, or regularly, rather than a given page at a given time. After years of this madness, Wikipedia has collected some ban-happy admins with grudges and axes to grind. I'm sure many of them would love to ban their opponents on content disputes for up to a year. What sort of assurances can one like myself who edits paranormal-related articles as a hobby, not advocacy, be given that the new powers won't be abused? I don't edit war, am civil, but I've irritated admins in the past simply by disagreeing with them in content disputes, particularly that Wikipedia can also cover folklore neutrally without having a solely science point-of-view. Some admins adamantly reject that eventhough most agree that such a prospect is entirely neutral. AGF went out the window about two years ago on these topics, so frankly I'm a little concerned.

Paranormal topics aren't just pseudoscience (though they are, in part, that). There's also a historical perspective (eg. Remote viewing was studied by the CIA, UFOs were studied by the Air Force, Parapsychology was once accepted by the elite in society like William James, etc.). Presenting that historical information is sometimes called POV pushing by admins. There's also the sociological perspective (eg. 73 percent of the general US population holds some sort of paranormal belief [88]). Presenting information regarding just the "beliefs" is sometimes called POV pushing by admins. There's also the cultural, folklore perspective (eg. Spooklights are common in Southern US folklore). Talking about the folklore on those articles is sometimes called POV pushing by admins who say that the article should predominantly be about methane gases, etc. So, yes, there is a potential for abuse based solely on ideologies and old grudges. If the goal is to just to refresh the editor pool on these topics regardless of whether they're productive Wikipedians, that's fine, that goal will be served if no oversight is in place. But if the goal is to only target disruptive editors, there will need to be some sort of oversight.

I'd like to see what DGG mentioned below, a Topic Ban Noticeboard and some degree of practical consensus to prevent a single editor/admin, or ideological group of editors/admins, from going ban-happy. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 13:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

per Vassyana's replies on it's intended use. It seems fundamentally wrong that blocking or banning a user, a person, would have less outside discussion than what it takes to delete an article. This is essentially a "speedy delete" applied to a user, in spirit. It's always harder to correct a mistake than it is to prevent a mistake. Community discussion is essential when dealing with users who may not be aware that what they are doing is wrong, and determining what actually is wrong to begin with. That's what RfCs are all about. If the goal is to relieve the burden on the ArbCom, that can be done without dropping the discussions altogether. A very simple way to do that is to say "If after a RfC about applying sanctions on the user, allowing for community input and consensus-building, an uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict." Anything less is setting the bar for deleting a user from a topic lower than deleting a topic itself. The RfC also has the benefit of providing the banning/blocking admin with a summary of the issues surrounding the user so they could make an informed decision. The admin could, of course, in their discretion, interpret the RfC anyway they wish and impose their discretionary sanctions, but at least there'd be a discussion on the matter. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry

Concur that this is a good idea, as an admin who is a regular at WP:AE. Editors active in this area should write their comments assuming that their own actions, and those of whom they agree with on content, will be reviewed and possibly sanctioned. I know of multiple editors in each faction who have effectively developed enemy lists of other editors they want banned, which is a bad sign for the ability of the editors in these areas to work together. We need to clear out those who can't or won't work with those who disagree with them so that a reasonable communal editing environment exists for current and future editors. GRBerry 15:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a strong definition of uninvolved/neutral is needed here. I commend the WP:ARBPIA model - has never been involved in a content dispute on any article in the pseudoscience/paranormal topic area with that topic area broadly construed. GRBerry 17:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We need more than that. We need a statement of neutrality toward the subjects themselves. I've seen mediators come in and say essentially "Well it's bunk so..." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Martinphi

Endorse per everything Nealparr said. I have very little confidence in the ability of admins 1) to be neutral if they are involved and 2) to get it if they are not. Indeed, I have seen editors like Zvika who did my interview struggle with the issues in these cases, and find it nearly impossible (many many hours of work to get up to date). I have seen obviously biased admins who are supposedly "outside" the debates come in and give sanctions. For example, some of those banning people relative to the 9/11 or Homeopathy issues. In other words, I have no fear of neutrality, but I have fear of hidden bias. If even Nealparr is scared, I certainly am, because I've been deionized all over the place irrespective of my actual edits, beliefs, ideas or intent.

I would like an advocate that I can agree is neutral, such as LaraLove or DGG or maybe Vassyana to review things before any action is take against me. Same for others.

I suggest that a committee of truly neutral subject matter experts, or simply editors truly neutral to the subjects be set up to deal with sourcing in paranormal areas. "Do you feel neutral toward issues of the paranormal?" Should be the question. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by DGG

I think the "endorsements" above show why it might not actually work--the disagreement between different arbitrators over the standards for these articles is fairly complete. Everyone things that they are neutral. I can predict what will happen, which is continual appeals from it, carried on in every forum possible, just as present. And i do not think the problem is that hopeless either, because I think the community is evolving standards. The problem is not individual topics--the problem is what degree of tolerance we should have for disruptive actions by good editors. Personally, I don't think they should get the essentially free ride they have at present.

If we do something of this sort, I would not leave it to individual admins. or editors. What I think we'd need is the equivalent of a topic ban noticeboard, and some degree of practical consensus would be required. I remember the fate of the community ban noticeboard and I'm a little skeptical. DGG (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Seicer

I believe that, if implemented properly, could be an effective tool in finally ending the heated disagreements between the "anti-science" and "pro-science" camps. I do not believe it will lead to an end of hidden bias or blatant bias -- nor should it -- but that the implementation of a topic ban could finally kill the endless attacks against other editors and administrators, and could finally open the door for new editors, with fresh viewpoints and dialogues, to come in and edit.

I'd also like to echo GRBerry's comments above. There are multiple editors who have developed "watch lists" of other editors and administrators that they either want banned, or removed from various positions at Wikipedia. I will not go into specifics here regarding that, but it's a statement that's been made numerous times previously, here and elsewhere, and that it is leading to a serious divide in how, as editors and administrators, can resolve this long-standing conflict. I'd like to see a "topic ban noticeboard," but I am afraid that it would fall to either inactivity or hidden bias. seicer | talk | contribs 19:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kww

I understand the intention, and fear the result. I think that in order to maintain standing as an encyclopedia, we need be more specific, and actually take a side in favor of facts. Discretionary sanctions should be made available, targeted towards editors that make edits stating or implying a factual basis for pseudoscientific or paranormal topics. If we did that for a while, the heat and rancor would die down, because people attempting to corrupt the encyclopedia would eventually be eliminated.Kww (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tom Butler

Any effort that would make it possible for administrators to more effectively arbitrate content disputes would help. I have been treated as poorly by some admins as I have by some rank and file editors, so I am not in favor of giving any individual admin more authority. Perhaps a cadre of three or five editors would provide protection to both sides.

Lets face it, an arbitration takes way too long, and as I can see, they have hardly any effect except to more clearly define the sides. If an admin blocks an appeal to authority, then the person making the appeal is discredited and the abusive editor becomes more bullet proof. In fact, Wikipedia is not able to manage editors who are willing to game the system.

I have only edited on a few paranormal articles so I may be unaware of some of the grievances. Nevertheless, from my viewpoint, it is unrealistic to imagine that it is possible to arbitrate content disputes without deciding on content--not taking sides, but saying what the article will include. I would be comfortable with a venue in which I could present my viewpoint to a panel, editors with a contrary viewpoint could do the same and the panel would decide the article based on their "fair and informed" decision of what was presented. Give each presenter 500 words and ten diffs. I think I could find a way to live with that and I am certainly willing to try. Tom Butler (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Guy, most of us "believers" just want to have the articles you are complaining about explain what the subject is said to be or thought to be without trying to say what you think it is or what you want the public to believe. I would be interested in how you would apply the treatment used for articles on religious beliefs to paranormal articles. For instance, I suspect that not even members of the WikiProject Rational Skepticism would attempt to make Wikipedia say that the Catholic Church is not real. Can you apply a similar standard to the EVP article without characterizing as real or not real? Can you just say what it is reported to be? Doing so would certainly stop a lot of the content disputes. Tom Butler (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jossi

Agree in principle with Vassyana's proposal, with the caveats presented by DGG, that is to have a place in which we can assess some measure of administrators' consensus when applying broad restrictions such as topic bans or blocks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:B

This has too much potential for abuse the way it is worded. Some people consider anything they disagree with to be pseudoscience and would attempt to apply this far beyond its scope. (For example, most evangelical Christians believe in something other than atheistic evolution, therefore someone who edits Bobby Bowden is editing an article on pseudoscience, right?) It needs to be spelled out what this applies to - theories of origin, alternative medicine, paranormal, etc. --B (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Baegis

I'm going to have to agree with B on this one. There are some areas which qualify as pseudoscience but which do not need this sort of protection. The ID related articles are stable for the most part, because there are a great number of fine editors who are very active on those pages. They are occasionally disrupted, but not nearly enough for the scope of this proposal to be anything more than a hindrance. The areas that this will apply to need to be better spelled out. There are probably thousands of articles that fall within the pseudoscience area, especially if broadly defined. And if BLP's are included in that, ie the ones of proponents of pseudoscience, there are an even greater number of articles. I would wager that it is pretty clear the the biggest problems lie in the CAM area and the paranormal areas. Focusing on the most problematic areas is a better idea than a big sweeping probation. Baegis (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

There is a long-standing issue with pseudoscience, fringe and paranormal articles. The sources which discuss these subjects are typically either wholly uncritical, or dedicated sceptics. The fact that the mainstream science community does not accept paranormal claims is hard to source, because scientists do not publish papers saying that hokum is hokum. The result is a series of in-universe articles on fictional topics. Added to that, we have believers in these paranormal ideas whose primary function on Wikipedia is to attempt to have them documented as reality, not a fringe belief system.

I do believe we can make this work by applying the same methods as are applied in articles on religious belief systems. The article on Saint Alban documents the verifiable facts which are undisputed, being the identity and martyrdom, documented in local Roman records; discusses the mythology of the Holy Well; and discusses the cult of Alban. I think we can document the paranormal belief system in the same way, but we have too many people asserting that it is real. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Antelan

My own personal sentiment is that the current options for enforcement have not yet been applied in a stringent way, and should not be broadened until they have been fully tested. That said, I share Vassayana's frustration, and would hope that this will serve to push administrators to use the tools that they have been given. Antelan^talk 17:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

Given the occasionally contentious nature of the discussions regarding this subject, perhaps it might be possible for the ArbCom to help in the selection of a group of editors who would be able to function in much the same way as the recently created cultural disputes group is supposed to. It might also be useful for some of the religion and pseudoscience content as well, given the often disparate opinions there. Might it be possible to expand the remit of the existing cultural disputes group, and possibly its membership, to include these other matters as well, or alterntely create similar groups for these matters? John Carter (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Filll

Although I understand the desire to come up with a quick fix or a magic bullet here, I do not think that more enforcement is the answer. I have observed how well more enforcement and greater empowerment of admins worked at homeopathy and related articles, and I have to admit I was somewhat underwhelmed. I have also encountered a fair number of administrators who are FRINGE proponents or antiscience themselves, so just giving all administrators more power is not a very well-reasoned response. I would like to see a more measured and careful approach for dealing with this kind of problem, such as those potential options being considered at the discussion lead by User:Raul654 at [89].--Filll (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• We are currently looking into some modifications to the discretionary sanction ruling as part of the Homeopathy case; while I'm open to imposing them here, I'd prefer to avoid doing so until we decide on the better wording there. Kirill ^(prof) 01:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Per Kirill. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Request for clarification–Episodes and characters 2

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

• Kww (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked for a week on April 27)
• Rlevse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocking admin)

Statement by User:Kww

The decision text is : TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate.

TTN was blocked for one week today, for edits that did not violate a single term of the restrictions from his arbcom enforcement. "Broadly interpreting" [90] and [91] as substantially amounting to a merge or deletion is a broad interpretation beyond all reason.

Can TTN still edit character articles to bring them in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Or is any edit that removes material from a character article capable of being broadly interpreted as a deletion?Kww (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure I'm understood ... I'm not concerned about applying the decision to video-game characters. I'm objecting to the idea that taking an article that was in truly miserable shape and fixing it substantially amounts to a merge or deletion.Kww (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to expand a bit here, and register my objection to the term of his latest block as well. Recapping his first block: I agree that the tantrum that starts every time TTN edits an article is disruptive, but he is not the source of the disruption, his opponents are. He was blocked for editing Final Fight:Streetwise. He was criticised for removing about 80% of one of the cruftiest articles around, and turning it into a reasonable video game article. He made three different passes at it, and was reverted by Zero Giga and an anonymous IP. Each pass made an effort to address the previous concerns. This editing was broadly construed as requesting a deletion, so he got blocked for a week. Black Kite shows up a few days later, and, instead of removing 80% of the article, only removes 65% of the article. Not a peep. None of the editors that so cheerfully reverted TTN's edits wholesale found a single line of Black Kite's edits to object to. The only conclusion I can reach is that the editors that were reverting him were not motivated by the material: they were motivated by the fact that it was TTN that had made the removals. Now, in such a situation, what is the appropriate action for an admin to take? It's to go have a chat with the editors that reverted the change, and make sure that they are undoing the change as opposed to undoing the editor. Instead, admins looked at the arbcom decision, and stretched the interpretation of "deletion" well past its breaking point, and blocked TTN for a week. Notice that the Arbcom sanctions called for blockages increasing to a week in the event of repeated violations. Even if this edit had motivated a block, a week is complete overkill ... they reached for the biggest hammer in their toolkit as the first step.

Now, TTN has been blocked for two weeks, based on the perception that he is repeatedly violating his sanctions. His offending edit was to the Fiction Noticeboard. The community is reasonably split as to whether this falls under the restriction of "project pages" or under the freedom of "free to contribute on talk pages". I can see both sides, and think clarification is warranted. Still, worst case is that it is his first offense, and an offense that reasonable people can see as not an offense at all. For this, he was blocked for two weeks, despite the fact that the maximum sanction in the Arbcom decision is one week.

I think that not only is clarification needed, but a strong statement is needed that the phrase "broadly interpreted" does not mean "block TTN at the drop of a hat". I sense that there is a group of admins that have decided that the easiest way to end the controversy is to simply block TTN at the time that any dispute involving him occurs. Sanctions against an editor are a serious thing, and, in order to be meaningful, but be subject to reasonable interpretation. Editing articles cannot be interpreted as "requesting deletion", and "up to one week for repeated offenses" cannot be reasonably interpreted as "two weeks". Kww (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it be too much to ask for an arbitrator to take the time to read my complaint and respond before banning me? Kww (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So nice to be appreciated. How many arbitrators have to vote for the topic ban in order for it to become binding?Kww (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we have some clarifications, please?

This section is intended to be a place where previous decisions are clarified, not extended. You wrote piles of different variations of different sentences. Thought them over. Voted on different versions. Subtleties of different text were weighed, evaluated, and then chosen, based on their merits. Not a one of you really thought that when you selected TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. from all of the other choices that that text meant TTN and Kww should be topic banned. In good faith, none of you can claim that it meant TTN should be blamed for all conflicts that arise, and blocked at a rate greatly exceeding the specified enforcement. Even if those things are what you wanted to say, they are not what you said. If the community was requesting you to amend your previous cases, we would have made statements under Request to amend. No one has done so.

So, time for clarifications:

• At the time that you wrote TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly, did you intend for the noticeboards to be included as a project page?

• At the time that you wrote TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly, did you intend for TTN to be banned from trimming articles?

• At the time that you wrote He is free to contribute on the talk pages, how did you intend for that to interact with request for any of the preceding in the previous statement? Does his freedom include requests for deletion? Or not?

Please answer those questions. That's all this section is for. What you think of the situation now is interesting, but for another place. What you wish you had thought of is interesting, but again, for another place. What you think of my attitude is interesting, but, again, for another place. This is a place solely for clarifications, so, please, please, please, give us clarification.Kww (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Rlevse

Over the last week TTN has removed over 80% of the "Final Fight: Streetwise" article 3 times, which TTN claims are trimming and cleaning up, yet in fact whole paragraphs were removed, such as here. In the Mario characters, which have also been on TV as best I recall, he removed entire paragraphs, as here. Similar issues were brought here at AN. As video games are very similar to TV, they often appear on TV in some form, and the fact that this problem was evident during the arbitration hearings, and the ruling says "broadly interpreted", and TTN seems to be pushing the envelope, the need for a block was apparent to me.

An unblock was declined and supported by others.

Response to Kww's clarification...I'd have to say that removing whole sections, paragraphs, and 80% of an article amounts to deletion. This is not "trimming and cleaning up". Further consider that the remedy also said "The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question." This seems to have been clearly violated by TTN too. There has been no chat at Talk:Final Fight: Streetwise for a year. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry

I will be pleasantly surprised if the editors in this area manage to avoid another full ArbComm in the near future. The issues are not specific to TTN; one example is shown by this archived WP:AE report. In my view, problems exist in the behavior of both factions. It seems ridiculous to consider discretionary sanctions for this topic area; these editors should be able to work together to find consensus if they choose to. But if they don't choose to, we may have to end up with discretionary sanctions. GRBerry 13:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by TTN

Can I please get some sort of clarification on what exactly I can do and cannot do? Can I cleanup articles by removing information? That's that's what I was initially blocked for. Can I revert at all? Edit warring is bad, but to have a block sustained because of two reverts (where one revert is a anon with a non-static IP) seems a little steep without some sort of restriction on that in the first place. Can I suggest that things be merged on talk pages of users, projects, and other articles? I assumed that the restriction was towards templates, but I was scrutinized for doing so. Can I point out bad articles? I guess I wouldn't ask one user single again, but can I just post a list of "problem articles" on a project talk page or the Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard, and let them take care of it? If this could be responded to quickly, that would be appreciated. TTN (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Sjakkalle

I am not exactly sure where to put this statement, since there are already two requests for clarification here, but I want to register my concerns here.

I have a deep concern that the ArbCom's admonition The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. is not being followed at all. Let's see.

First, "Cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question." (The redirection and unredirection of episodes and characters with little or no discussion is still taking place.)

Second, "...attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute.". Since the E&C2 case closed, I have seen at least two instances of parties from that case use the term vandalism. (And I have not been actively searching for these, there are probably more, from both sides of the dispute)

• Kww at 14:00, 1 April 2008 Regarding authors of fiction/fancruft articles: "I would happily treat people creating such articles as vandals, as opposed to editors". (After looking at E&C2, I see that Kww is not listed as a party, but since he initiated this clarification, and supportive of TTN, I think he is de facto party to it.)
• Eusebeus at 03:06, 6 May 2008 restores a redirect, calling the undoing of the redirect "vandalism". (And there are two more, here and here.)

I cannot imagine anything more inflammatory than calling the "other side" of the dispute "vandals".

This has got to stop.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment regarding Kww

When I listed Kww in my statement, it was not an attempt to single him out in particular. The reason I added it was that the statement struck me when I saw it as something highly inappropriate, and an indication of how low the "discussion" had sunk by this time.

However, I want to say that Kww is not by any means the worst offender in the FICT debate, his work in removing or consolidating fictional topics has to my knowledge not included edit-warring or massive swathes of deletion nominations or redirects. Indeed, I have no problem believing MartinPhi when he says that Kww has been able to work and contribute constructively on certain fiction articles.

I have no problem with Kirill's dismay at seeing the comparison between vandals and fiction editors, I continue to think that this particular diff was very inappropriate, and it was one which hit me quite close to home. There is a discussion between Kww and myself on my talkpage, and if I understood Kww correctly, his remark was directed against editors who add fiction with no sources, and edit war to keep it in. Calling this "vandalism" remains inappropriate, but I don't think he directed the accusation at all fiction writers in general. I don't know whether this diff is representative of Kww's attitude either, he assured me in the discussion on the talkpage that he was careful not to call any editor a vandal directly, and he also took time out to caution another editor that restoring redirects with an accusation of "vandalism" in the summary would only lead to trouble [92].

I am not going to tell ArbCom how to handle their cases, but when evidence presented by myself is used as basis for a sanction, I will state my opinion that I think issuing a topic ban for what amounts to one diff over six weeks ago is an overreaction. If this were an example of behavior from a person otherwise engaged in edit-warring in this conflict, I would probably be in support of something like this. I can understand an impatience that continued incivility and edit warring after two ArbCom cases is wearing the tolerance very thin here. If the ArbCom can find a way to send a very clear and unequivocal message that calling anybody in this dispute a "vandal" must cease, without perma-banning Kww from fiction topics, that will be much more preferable. Yes, I know there were two admonitions from two previous ArbCom cases, but I don't think Kww's single inappropriate comment has rendered useless all further input from him in this conflict. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment regarding TTN

My sympathy with TTN is at zero now. A look at List of Mario series characters shows a number of edits where TTN removes a little bit of content from the article, calling it "trim", most recently here, with no explanation given for this "trim". And this is not only unquestionable trivia he is removing, he has been removing content about which games the characters have appeared (isn't that relevant to the character?) like "Princess Rosalina also appeared as a hidden character in Mario Kart Wii". This seems to be an effort to slowly tap the list of content in a way which does not attract attention. Also on List of Sonic X episodes, this edit, which the edit summary claims to be "Set up basic table", is far more drastic that setting up a table, TTN actually removes all the description of the episode, and again this is without any discussion on the talkpage. Another "trim" on List of Kirby characters here didn't just trim the section on the characters Mr. Shine & Mr. Bright, it removed them.

I feel this is at the very least a skirting of the edges of the ArbCom restrictions. If the right to merge, redirect, or nominate for deletion is taken away, just move on to aggressive "trimming" instead. The proposed sanction from ArbCom on TTN, as opposed to the sanction on Kww, which I have opposed in the above section, is in my opinion, completely in order. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Lawrence

Can we place get AC action on this? It's starting all over again: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_review_of_2_week_block_of_User:TTN. I know you guys are busy, but this appears to be now a critical case and clarification action is needed. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 05:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

Whilst using the term "vandals" to describe editors who repeatedly create multiple policy-failing articles on the back of the previous ArbCom decision is probably excessive, I'd certainly go as far as to use "disruptive". Topic-banning editors who attempt to balance policy against those creating reams of unencyclopedic articles (and then descending en masse onto any AfD which occurs with masses of WP:ITSNOTABLE non-!votes) is certainly a good way of reducing the quality of this alleged encyclopedia, which becomes less and less of one every day that such articles continue to multiply. It is time for ArbCom to realise that there are two sides to this dispute, and stop listening - as has happened so far - only to those that shout the loudest. If ArbCom actually wants to improve the quality of our articles, they either need to throw this proposed sanction in the bin, or add about another half-dozen users to it. Where are the sanctions for those that edit-war on policy pages, flood AfD with wikilawyering or revert TTN and other editors even when they are editing in line with policy?. Nowhere, it appears. I am astonished that at least two arbs (so far) appear to have looked at a few incidents yet not at the bigger picture. This is a ridiculous proposed sanction, especially on User:Kww who appears to be targeted for a single frustrated edit. Black Kite 22:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Kirill's quote here User_talk:Ned_Scott#TTN of "his (TTN's) reputation is such that anything he does will likely be reverted regardless of its merits—so all he's doing is needlessly antagonizing the editors supporting this material" - makes it clear that he is supporting topic-banning an editor because those with opposing views continually revert him especially as those editors reverting TTN are usually reverting against policy. I had to read this a number of times before I was sure he was serious. Black Kite 10:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ned Scott

TTN got recently blocked because he honestly did not think his restrictions meant that he wasn't able to start a thread on a project notice board, myself and several other Wikipedians in good standing were under the same assumption. That's not gaming the system or pushing the limit, that's nothing more than miscommunication. TTN even pleaded with you guys to get some guidance, and arbcom ignored the request for clarification for weeks. Now Kirill comes out of no where with a complete and total ban proposal? That's a horrible idea. TTN has been behaving very well, and hasn't been doing anything wrong. The flames seen are nothing more than the left over feelings from the past, not because of things that are happening now.

And Kirill comes completely out of left field with a proposal to ban Kww, who hasn't even had any kind of RfC or mediation, or focus of any kind in the last two cases. It's like swinging around blindly, smashing furniture and breaking walls, just to put out a candle. Take off the blindfold and put down the bat. I personally would do anything (within my human abilities as a Wikipedian) to get arbcom to reconsider this, and to actually look at the situation instead of the white noise. The fact that these proposals are even being considered is a very scary thing, and shakes my faith that arbcom can be fair and reasonable. -- Ned Scott 02:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And no one even notes stuff like this. Please, I beg all of the arbs to not make assumptions here. -- Ned Scott 02:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like some more eyes on this: User talk:Ned Scott#TTN. Kirill's logic is that even if TTN isn't doing anything wrong, because of his reputation people will revert and argue with him, so Kirill wants to remove TTN by force. That seems very inappropriate to me. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Casliber

TTN (and others) have had a year or more of multiple reports at AN/I and arbcom etc. to stop behaving like single-purpose content removal accounts, sending all and sundry scurrying about to ref or remove material, plainly not in the spirit of collaborative editing of a volunteer project. Some have shown valued roles and abilities in other areas, some haven't. I can't comment on KWW as I have not examined his edit details but am happy that he can think independently on some issues (we swapped sides on Jack Merridew's ban after all), which is a good sign. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

By Martinphi

Could you make an exception for What the Bleep do We Know?. Kww was one of those who was able to work toward NPOV on that article. He wasn't perfect, but he did manage it, and he was also a moderating influence on other editors of his own general opinion. Might need him there again. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie

So ArbCom is going to compound their mistakes by dropping further "clarifications" on an issue that has already seen the other side turn ArbCom's words into pretzels in an attempt to run "the other side" off the encyclopedia? I can't say as I agree with the suggested outcome. SirFozzie (talk) 07:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Vassyana

I recently blocked TTN for what I felt was an outright violation of his restrictions, compounded by what I perceived as pushing the boundaries (or moving against the spirit) of the sanction. I unblocked him when he agreed to refrain from initiating any merge/redirect/etc discussion and avoid asking others to act on his behalf, until such a time as ArbCom responded to these clarification requests.[93][94] There was some discussion of the block on my talk page, as well as TTN's.[95][96][97] My block was raised for review on AN, where the actions of Pixelface and a potential topic ban for TTN were also raised.[98] If the arbitrators feel my actions were inappropriate, I would welcome the criticism and appreciate any advice. Vassyana (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by sgeureka

I am quite concerned about the current motions to topic-ban anyone who dares try to improve the encyclopedia per policies and guidelines, or who sympathizes with editors legitimately trying to improve the encyclopedia. Before someone else does it, I'll do it myself.

• Sgeureka 16:12, May 17, 2008 restores a redirect, calling the undoing of the redirect "vandalism". (By the way, the redirect needed to be semi-protected for two weeks before, and the undoer has been blocked twice now, the last one for "persistent vandalism", but I realize some people would continue to call my action vandalism.)

I agree with Sjakkalle that this has to stop, but there are two sides of the coin here. Someone described the current actions against TTN (and by extension any fiction mergist/deletionist, including Kww) as "lynchmob". I think no other word better captures my impression of the situation. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jakew

I became aware of this quite recently, when I noticed repeated and insistent demands (bordering on disruption) at WT:NOT to remove WP:PLOT from policy. This kind of thing is somewhat familiar, and although exceptions exist, when we trace the history we usually find repeated attempts (and often edit warring) to insert some material, which is removed per policy (often WP:NPOV or WP:NOR, though not in this case) and the user in question then decides that the issue is so important that policy must be changed to accomodate it. Such attempts rarely succeed, because consensus is that the user has fundamentally failed to grasp what WP is (and is not). That may be the case here.

I would suggest that the very fact that one side of this dispute has identified a need to change policy indicates that they may have previously been editing against policy. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are "wrong", per se, but it is hard to understand why other editors should be sanctioned for "enforc[ing] most policies and guidelines by editing pages, and discussing matters with each other". If there are behavioural problems (I understand from FoF #3 that there have been), then these need to be addressed, but please make remedies proportionate and understandable in a wider context.

Statement by Masem

• I have to agree with Ned, Sgeureka, and Jakew in that what is being proposed here seems very one-sided to the overall picture that was developed from the E&C 2. TTN, to me, seems to be trying to meet the spirit of the motion, but unfortunately due to his past actions, he's got a set of editors that watch most of his edits, and like to wikilawyer the specific wording. (Case in point, TTN posted a suggestion on the Fiction-related noticeboard, and some took this as violating where TTN is allowed to edit as, strictly speaking, that noticeboard is not a talk page. The "to be interpreted broadly" language in the motion is causing a lot of this trouble, which is why I think those looking to penalize TTN need to consider what the intent of the motion was, and not the specific wording - we want TTN to work collaborative with others to determine how best to improve articles on fiction on WP. There are some actions that TTN has done since the motion that are within the motion's restrictions and thus blocks are appropriate, but the thing is, he is talking and discussing proposed changes. That's mostly what people wanted out of the E&C 2 case, right?
• Unfortunately, this is really not true. The heart of the E&C 2, based on its discussions and the resulting actions since, has seemed to be to validate the fact that Wikipedia's coverage of fiction should not conform to WP:NOT and WP:NOTE, and that coverage of fiction can be broad and expansion based only on primary sources. Now, first, taking this position towards coverage of fiction works itself is not in any way wrong; if that's what the editors believe, I can't say its incorrect. But, in taking that belief, against what is probably an equivalent push to remove much of the coverage of fiction from WP specifically due to WP:NOT and WP:NOTE, there feels to be a strong effort to get rid of editors that do not share the same inclusionists beliefs towards fiction such as TTN and Kww, and to staunchly argue that policy must be changed to support the inclusionist view. The result of the E&C 2 case, based on the above scrutiny of TTN's actions since, seems to be validation that their approach is correct, but again, we have this second motion from this case that involved editors are supposed to help shape how such articles should be handled, not that one side is necessarily right. I have been working the past year to try to get WP:FICT to a point of balance between these extremes which has been long and mentally exhausting, much which rests on WP:NOT#PLOT, but as recent discussions at WT:NOT can show, there are some that simply want that policy gone and do not seem to be making concessions or collaborative efforts to try to figure out the balance, despite the fact that myself and others have offered wording changes and other suggested policy and guidelines to remove some of the concerns they have. That second motion from this case really needs to be considered a lot more in order to balance this out and make sure that the case was not validation for the inclusionists' point of view - unfortunately, the way its written, there's no teeth behind it as much as the TTN restrictions on editing, and it's impossible to show the lack of collaboration, only state that how one's actions in a debate may not feel collaborative. Thus, I feel that the first motion should be read in conjunction with the second, and specifically look at the intent of TTN's actions in regards to both motions regardless of the source of the complaint: is TTN working in a collaborative effort to improve the encyclopedia, instead of his previous hard-nosed and overburdening efforts? --MASEM 14:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kung Fu Man

I'm a bit late to this, but only recently caught wind regardless. I've dealt with both TTN and Kww in a few formats though, and I'm not going to sit here and speak about TTN: my stance towards him is neutral, he has his heart in the right place, but is overly forceful with his vision. I will speak in defense of Kww however. Kww has shown willingness to discuss proposals on subjects like merges and his edits have not had a negative impact on the related subjects. So despite where the ideals may lie, Kww is far from warranting a topic ban in this case.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by DGG

There's a difference between TTN and Kww--TTN is determined to disrupt the formation of consensus on each individual article in any way he can devise, and Kww is trying to get consensus for his general view--a view in complete opposition to mine, to be sure, but I do not see how is is doing it disruptively. I think a permanent topic ban for him is over-reaction. He did not address the word vandal to any editor, he used it I hope a little hyperbolically in a discussion on a policy page to support an extreme view about what ought to be the policy. I don't think it helpful to ban him from these discussions at this point. DGG (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by AuburnPilot

Also a bit late to this discussion, but having just discovered this case, I must strongly disagree with any ban placed on Kww. I've worked extensively with Kww on topics unrelated to this one, and have never found him to be anything but willing to help and discuss points of disagreement. I agree with DGG's statement above, in that a ban on Kww is an overreaction. - auburnpilot talk 20:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Woonpton

I have no experience with the fiction articles in question, but I've worked with kww on What the Bleep Do We Know, a very contentious article where he took the lead and worked with all constituencies to craft a compromise lead we could all live with and had it inserted by an admin into the protected article. This is the kind of editor I would think Wikipedia would want to protect and nurture, rather than punish and alienate. I've never seen him use the derogatory expressions used by some other editors to characterize those of a different viewpoint, and if he did so on a fiction article, then I would have to wonder if, unlikely as it seems, he might have had even more provocation there than on What the Bleep Do We Know, where his demeanor was always professional and respectful to all, during the time I observed him there. Also, though this is less germane to the issues at hand, kww is one of the very few Wikipedians who made me feel welcome and respected as a new editor. It seemed only right to speak on his behalf, though no one asked me to and though I have no information to offer touching on the present issues. Woonpton (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by The Rogue Penguin

Mostly reiterating the last few postings, the topic ban on Kww seems unnecessary. From what I've seen, I would make this analogy: TTN is skating on thin ice, and rather than get off, he starts jumping up and down. Murky areas or not, a little common sense would dictate that you don't push the envelope on such an open-ended restriction. Kww's got no such problem, and aside from some uncivil comments, certainly hasn't enough to warrant a topic ban. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Second Statement by User:Ned Scott

Full topical ban or not, arbcom still hasn't clarified this request. The only thing TTN did "bad" this time was to start a discussion on a notice board that was in the project namespace. Given that two arbs were able to support a ban for Kww then change their minds makes me wonder how much attention is being paid to this situation.

The two proposed bans are both atrocious, but only is the one on Kww easily identifiable (but still missed by two arbs, so far). It really seems like the only reason the topical ban for TTN is getting support is based on assumptions only, and has nothing to do with TTN's actions. Kirill himself has blatantly admitted this [99].

On May 4th, TTN practically begged arbcom to comment on this at #Statement by TTN. It's right there, on this same page, but I'll repeat it again since no one seemed to notice it:

Can I please get some sort of clarification on what exactly I can do and cannot do? Can I cleanup articles by removing information? That's that's what I was initially blocked for. Can I revert at all? Edit warring is bad, but to have a block sustained because of two reverts (where one revert is a anon with a non-static IP) seems a little steep without some sort of restriction on that in the first place. Can I suggest that things be merged on talk pages of users, projects, and other articles? I assumed that the restriction was towards templates, but I was scrutinized for doing so. Can I point out bad articles? I guess I wouldn't ask one user single again, but can I just post a list of "problem articles" on a project talk page or the Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard, and let them take care of it? If this could be responded to quickly, that would be appreciated. TTN (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not some guy trying to skate around a restriction. He's honestly trying to understand his restrictions and abide by them.

I beg of the arbs, if you can find reason to question Kww's restrictions, then take some time to question TTN's. If TTN's topical ban does pass, is it for the duration of the original 6 month ban? And please, actually answer our request, which is all we wanted from you. -- Ned Scott 04:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Jtrainor

User:Sesshomaru could stand being looked at as well-- [[100]] bit on TTN's talk page, and his habit of spamming templates at anyone who reverts him tend to show a general lack of AGF on his part, as well as chronic incivility. Jtrainor (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• This request has been retitled to "Request for clarification–Episodes and characters 2" (note the "–" after clarification, as oppose to the customary ":"). This is to differentiate it from the similar "Request for clarification: Episodes and characters 2". Please note the difference between the two, and be careful in linking to either thread. Anthøny 18:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I suppose it was too much to hope that the editors fighting over these articles would take two cases as an adequate hint that they were out of line. Oh well; we can always try the hard way, then. Kirill ^(prof) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• I could have supported a motion for this case and I still believe that there was no need for a clarification. However, after discussing this matter with the concerned parties and the ArbCom, I now believe that we can move forward. I don't see a real threat of disruption from user:TTN and particularly user:Kww who does not deserve more than a firm reminder: users involved in the area should be more careful with their actions and consider that any misguided action(s) can affect the atmosphere. I will assume good faith and trust the words of user:TTN posted on my talk page and understand that he is fully aware of the seriousness of the issue. I assume he now knows for real that he is not entitled to initiate any discussion on any article or project's talk page. I also would see no problem with him contacting users, admins or anyone on their talk pages where posts and comments should be judged by their own merits -unless there are users who would not want user:TTN to leave comments on their talk pages. That being said, I'll be glad (unfortunately) to have another general look on the issue in a wider scope anytime that would be deemed necessary. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

For these motions, there are 12 active Arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.

TTN restricted

TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise having any involvement whatsoever with any article substantially related to a work of art or fiction (including, but not limited to, video games, movies, TV shows, novels, comic books, and so forth) or any element of such a work.

Support:

1. These senseless flareups will be stopped, one way or another. Kirill ^(prof) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
2. I'm beginning to think we should have done this at the start. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
3. While many of the issues that reach arbitration are controversial due to the nature of the topic and will always be heated topics of discussion, I do not see this as the case with this topic. Instead, I see the problems here are due more to the manner of interaction between users. I think that removing users will be effective and will not hesitate to expand the list of involved users that are banned from this topic. Also, the purpose of the restrictions on TNN were to stop controversial edits. The list of restrictions was not exhaustive in this sense, and all controversial edits should be recognized as such. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

   FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Paul August ☎ 15:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Per my view above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Shouldn't be needed beyond the case. But, if it really does become necessary, just block and throw away the key. James F. (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Abstain:

Kww restricted

Kww (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise having any involvement whatsoever with any article substantially related to a work of art or fiction (including, but not limited to, video games, movies, TV shows, novels, comic books, and so forth) or any element of such a work.

Support:

1. If you feel the urge to treat legitimate editors like vandals, it might be time to take a break from this topic. Kirill ^(prof) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

   It's become necessary. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC) I am rethinking; may reinstate this vote or change it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

2. See my above comment. And agree with Kirill. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

   Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Not convinced that restrictions on Kww are justified at the present. Seems to be based on a questionable interpretation of a single edit. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
2. On consideration, I'd rather a warning than a restriction at this time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Kww was instructed and warned and not restricted on the related ArbCom case. A 6 months restriction would be reasonable this time. If problems persist Kww would face the same measures applied to TTN above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

   Per my comment in the arbitratiors' view section above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

4. Paul August ☎ 15:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Per above. James F. (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Abstain:

---

Request for clarification: Episodes and characters 2

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

• Kyaa the Catlord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (left note on talk) (blocked for a week on April 27)
• Sgeureka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (left note on talk and has responded below)

Statement by Kyaa the Catlord

The decision text is : TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate.

My question is the following:

Can TTN request others to redirect articles as a proxy or is he under the same sort of restrictions as a banned user would be in cases where others would work as his proxy and redirect articles on his behalf? He has recently asked another user to make some redirects on articles where the other user had not acted in the previous month and three weeks (roughly) until encouraged to redirect by TTN. Thank you for the clarification in advance. (for further information and discussion please see Adminstrator's Noticeboard thread on TTN

Response to sg (who's name is really hard for me to spell, forgive me): I believe that's the crux of the problem TTN seems to not be able to initiate discussion per the ruling and bringing them to your attention is similar, in my view, to asking you to act as a proxy to work around the sanction which would be, in my view, terribly ungood behavior. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to sg2: I agree that doing so in the light is better than sneaking around and coordinating it off-wiki, but... the key question remains, is he allowed to initiate such conversation. From my reading of the ruling, it would be no. Its the "initiated by another user" bit that has caused me to ask for clarification. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Neil for providing diffs. (I'm new to this sort of thing.) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by sgeureka

Speaking metaphorically, arbcom prohibited TTN from bullying the other kids at school, but at the same time took away his right to self-defend when he is the target of bullying (or at least of gross unfairness). This risk was pointed out in the arbcom case, but no solution was offered. TTN asking a teacher for help (who may grant it or not based on their own good judgement) neither automatically makes the teacher TTN's proxy nor does it make TTN the bad guy. So I would like some clarification if (a) TTN is allowed to point out problematic articles/edits without editing or tagging the articles himself, (b) if I am allowed to agree with TTN's reasoning and (c) if I am allowed to edit problematic articles/edits. If the answer is yes to all three questions, there shouldn't be a problem. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to Kyaa: sg stands for Stargate, Eureka is the famous exclamation, long story. ;-) And just like bringing up an issue at a noticeboard or pointing out a recurring typo that needs fixing, I see nothing wrong in pointing out articles that fail a policy when you're prohibited doing so via the usual channels (tagging and discussing). I guess you'd agree that this transparent action is better than TTN contacting me via email about his "troubles" (which he never did, but I wouldn't hold it against him - if he can't even do the most trivial things without risking a witch hunt against him). – sgeureka ^t•c 12:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum I think I've got a better illustration of the situation, at least as far as I am involved: If someone disallows the boy who cried wolf to ever (publicly) cry wolf again, may the boy (privately) whipser in my ear that he sees a wolf, and am I allowed to chase the wolf off when I see fit? Note that most people never had an issue with how I dealt with wolves before. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum 2 Since there doesn't seem to be any clarification forthcoming, I'll summarize the current status now that the dust has settled. Of the seven articles that TTN asked me to revert back to redirects, one is not-redirected because I saw no major fault in it (i.e. I didn't mindlessly execute TTN's "request"), one is not-redirected although I redirected it (I had accidently confused it with another article which is in fact redirected, both are/were in a very bad shape), one is still in merge discussions (i.e. TTN is not the only one who saw fault in it), and four are redirected. I'll let that speak for itself. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Neil

• Relevant diffs:
  • [101] - asking another user to redirect a number of character articles (expressly forbidden in the Arbcom ruling)
  • [102] - suggesting a merge of character articles to another user (expressly forbidden in the Arbcom ruling)
  • [103] - expressed intent to keep such suggestions off-Wiki in future
• Suggest either an extention to the probation, a month's block, or a final warning prior to a year's block. Neıl ☎ 13:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

Relevant recent discussions in chronological order:

• TTN and notability tagging?
• And so it begins again.
• Closure
• TTN, again.

Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kww

Really, what part of He is free to contribute on the talk pages is so difficult to understand? I don't see that any diff provided is on anything other than a talk page.Kww (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I read that ruling as referring to article-space talk pages, not as an invitation to post on user-space talk pages requesting proxy edits. Catchpole (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly." Neıl ☎ 16:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Neil's quote still only restricts edits on article and project pages. He is free to lobby on talk pages for others to make edits on article and project pages.Kww (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Moreover, it would be very helpful if Arbcom could remind those who are disruptively undoing TTN's earlier efforts that this violates the spirit of the ruling. Asking for assistance in restoring good faith redirects firmly grounded in policy because of a disruptive editing pattern is certainly reasonable. Also, arbcom needs to make it clear that the ruling was not a victory for one side nor the other in the ongoing debate about notability for topics of fiction. (sorry to butt in your statement page Kww; I just agree with everything you said here.) Eusebeus (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Petitioning for an article to be merged without discussion and pointing out specifically that he himself cannot do it so he needs someone else to is not promoting good faith, it's bypassing the restriction placed on him by simply adding a middle man to do it instead. In effect this negates the whole purpose of limiting him.

Additionally his comments that he should probably resort to such communication in secret does not help good faith either, but instead paints that he's well aware that his actions are in violation: if they weren't, he wouldn't have anything to even worry about to consider such an alternative, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that ... I might take steps to avoid getting hauled in front of Arbcom every two days, even if Arbcom cleared me of wrongdoing every time.Kww (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know taking steps to avoid Arbcom appearances could end badly, as the "Wikilobby" drama reminds us. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it can, which is why I hope Arbcom puts a stop to these efforts to drive TTN underground. Kww (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe it can make TTN realize that he has to work under the restrictions it placed on him, not attempt to find loopholes and proxies to do the sort of things that got him under editting restrictions in the first place. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This neglects to recognize that TTN's problem was style, not content. His identification of bad articles that needed to be redirected was somewhere around 99% accurate. His effort to bulldoze his way through was what caused the trouble.Kww (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ned Scott

Can we get a comment form the arbs about if TTN is allowed to start discussions on notice boards/WikiProject talk pages? We also need to make it clear that there is a difference between a direct request to do something like merge or delete, and TTN stating that he believes something should be. As in, if he does to a talk page and says "I think this should be merged/etc" that should be perfectly fine, and not seen as the same as him going to someone's talk page and saying "hey, could you redirect X for me" (though I don't believe that to be a real problem here in the first place, since it really is harmless because the burden is put on the editor being asked). -- Ned Scott 01:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The key to the remedy was requiring that TTN work through article or project talk pages. Asking other editors to perform edits for him, rather than engaging in talk page discussion, clearly violates the spirit of the remedy. If necessary I would support a motion altering the remedy to say something to the effect that TTN is restricted only to discussing such matters on talk pages, though I hope that TTN will refrain from this sort of thing on his own. --bainer (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Just to echo Bainer's comment here, in the hope that it will help strengthen the clarity. I would also regretfully support the suggested modification if it is necessary, but would prefer no so to do. James F. (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

---