Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

A request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting Arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom).

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/4/0
Very brief and neutral name describing the topic of the dispute		15 May 2024	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

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

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four accept votes are cast. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or Clerk may do so.

See also

• Arbitration policy
• Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case - Recommended reading: An (unofficial) guide to presenting effective Arbitration cases.
• Arbitration enforcement - Any user can request help here if it involves the violation of an ArbCom decision
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template

Purge the server cache

How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

• Click the "[edit]" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;
• Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
• Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
• Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
• Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

User:Jean-Thierry Boisseau (formerly User:Musikfabrik), et al.

Initiated by Adam Cuerden ^talk at 00:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Users involved

• User:Jean-Thierry Boisseau, formerly part of User_talk:Musikfabrik
• Adam Cuerden ^talk
• User:Folantin
• User:Moreschi
• User:Makemi
• User:Ssilvers

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Notes will be left on talk pages immediately after finishing this writeup.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

All other steps have been tried:

• It is very hard to avoid him: Jean-Thierry Boisseau, the main subject of this case, keeps undoing edits and other similar things.
• Disengagement is difficult: Jean-Thierry originally objected to an article being NPOV, so I and others worked extremely hard, taking it in good faith, and worked, with his approval, to create an NPOV technique to get the page NPOV. Promptly on having finished, Jean-Thierry Boisseau changed tact and began accusing us of horrible sexism, tried to get various orginisations set against us, and other such things. I edit under my own name. To accept this could be dangerous.
• Mediation and similar options: I believe I and User:Makemi counted as mediators in the first instance: I was trying to deal with issues he raised, after coming to that page briefly from another project, and rather agreeing with his attempts to makie it NPOV. Unfortunately, this presumed he was acting in good faith: The very act of creating this NPOV listing, which he initially approved of, has led to him, in the end, upping the degree of bashing significantly.

As first party, you may feel tempted to add a summary here. If you do, make it a single sentence of not more than twenty words. Please make your case in your statement.

Statement by party 1

User:Jean-Thierry Boisseau, formerly part of the banned group-username User:Musikfabrik has begun a course of bullying, personal attacks, and generally making things awful for all contributors at Talk:List of major opera composers and List of major opera composers. Examples:

• Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive3#Please do not add or delete any information from this article until the term "major opera composer" has been defined - Early bullying.
• User_talk:Makemi - Accusations by him flying thick and fast.
• [[Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive2#Adding unsourced statements - here's where he removed a reference because it didn't contain a page number. Also shows Folantin and Moreschi's contribution.
• Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive3#One_major_POV_issue_to_be_resolved - Here's where it came out he was part of a collective.
• Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers#Not_so_fast.__There_is_obvious_POV_gender_bias_here - I fully enter the dispute.

Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

It was never hidden that the username Musikfabrik was attached to a music publisher and that the articles being contributed were made for composers published by this organization, as is evidenced here - [[1]]. It should also be noted that the first post that was made on this talk page uses "We" and "Our". We had no idea about this "Role Account" rule and it was never brought to our attention. However, we have been honest and upfront about what we were doing from the beginning. Our additions to Germaine Tailleferre (the only documented complete list of her works anywhere) Gold and Fizdale, Alice Esty, speak for themselves.

However, as I have clearly stated, it was never our intention to try to get Germaine Tailleferre on this list (as has been repeatedly suggested on the page Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers, as she does not qualify, purely and simply. Using this tactic in a discussion concerning POV issues in the specific article List of major opera composers is clearly beside the point.

When my colleague Paul Wehage began editing on the article List of major opera composers there were no sources, no women listed, no living composers, no non-European composers and the selection process was done in a collegial manner without using any sources or definition of the []term "important" or even "opera". Certain issues have been resolved, not without much discussion and intrigue, but sources which could have resolved the POV gender bias issues have been ignored at best and surpressed at worst (as the discussion here would suggest User_talk:Adam_Cuerden#Judith_Weir). The International Alliance of Women in Music [2] was involved was means of getting sources which documented the importance of women in Opera; Three sources out of that discussion were proposed on the page Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive3#NPOV as was information about Kaija Saariaho among others, all of which was ignored or dismissed because this material only contained inforation about women. Yet, of the ten lists used to create the new contents of List_of_major_opera_composers, six contained the names of only men. The other four contained one or two women. When women (as is the case of Saariaho, Libby Larsen, Judith Weir and many others) have operas commissioned and performed by major festivals and major houses, staged and performed by major stage directors and singers, and recorded on major labels and none are seen as being important because information which could prove this claim is being deliberately surpressed, it would seem to me to be quite clear that an sexist agenda at work here. A further comment naming three Israeli composers (one of whom, Jan Friedlin, we publish, although we did not write his article here) here Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers#Not_so_fast.__There_is_obvious_POV_gender_bias_here would also tend to add an antisemetic aspect to this discussion.

As it stands, this article gives the message to the public that no women, no non-Europeans and very few living composers were "important opera composers". This statement is only possible because of the sources used. If other sources taking into account more recent research, compositions and performances, the information could be presented in an entirely different light. The point of all of this is that there is a great deal of resistent to change in the entire category of Opera, with a definite bias against anything outside of the accepted canons of "standard repertoire". While it is clear that these notions of "standard repertoire" should be included, what is also clear is that other sources which document other aspects of this subject outside of these "established canons" which are generally published in sources after the "general repertoire" sources. While the regional bias and the bias towards "Dead White Males" is also clearly an issue, I fail to see how it is more neutral to dismiss the works of more than 50% of Mankind, simply because of the conventions of "standard repertoire" and inspite of sources which could easily prove the contrary.

My primary issue with this list is its existence: How can a List of major opera composers ever claim neutrality, given what it is in the first place? Jean-Thierry Boisseau 13:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The "suppressed material" was added into the final ranking well before Jean-Thierry Boisseau pointed this up, as I have already mentioned to him on the talk page. As well, his claim that there were "nNo women composers" on the list before he entered into it is untrue: Francesca Caccini was on it, and noted as the first woman opera composer. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment As it had been requested here : Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive3#One_major_POV_issue_to_be_resolvedthat I stay out of the compiling of these lists, I have perhaps not followed this dicussion completely. I stand corrected. However, the fact that there was a woman opera composer before and there is not one now only points out the obvious gender bias in the process used.

I would however like to point out the discussion at Articles_for_deletion/List_of_compositions_for_harp which would clearly seem to point out that a "witchhunt" is clearly underway. If you remove the composer of the most widely performed work for the harp (Tailleferre's Sonata), you're not going to have much of a list anyway. This work is published by Peer Music. It's a pity that harpists, other publishers, and general music lovers will not have access to this information because you have a personal conflict with me...but so be it. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 14:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Party 3

The Musikfabrik account was blocked as a role account. We were not informed that it was a role account until extensive detective work by Folantin forced an admission that it was so. That account, so it seemed, was largely comprised of 2 people: Paul Wehage (who was often incivil and engaged in pointless POV battles), and Jean-Thierry Boisseau, who removed an inline citation as not having a page number and added inaccurate information to the list. This latter has also accused basically everyone involved in this case as being both sexist and lazy (see Makemi's talk page, link above). For the record, I also resent being labeled anti-Semitic. The imputation that I have a bias against contemporary composers is also wrong.

Jean-Thierry Boisseau's actions have not been entirely for the worse. His badgering led to the addition of 40-odd inline citations to the previously unreferenced list by myself and Folantin. Once this had been done, however, he then engaged in a move war with myself. I moved the list (following an idea endorsed by Jimbo Wales in a similar case) to List of opera composers considered major. My edit summary explained that this softened the POV, though it did not remove it altogether. He immediately, with no discussion, re-moved the list to List of composers of opera, claiming that anything else would be POV. Not only was his solution useless as it duplicated The opera corpus, but in my opinion the primary reason for his doing so was to be able to include spectacularly obscure composers on the Musik Fabrik roster , such as Germaine Tailleferre. After another bout of moves, we wound back up at the original title. Not only did were his moves preemptory and treated me as a vandal by reverting with no discussion, but then he left a flagrantly incivil message on my talk page.

Matters have recently descended from bad to worse after an edit war last night that sparked off this RFAR. Perhaps I should try to explain why there are no women on that list, even though now plenty of contemporary composers have been included. We took a decision, per Jimbo’s suggestion at the link I provided above, to compile our list using extant independent lists. This was done. The female composer with the most number of cites was Judith Weir, with 4 out of a maximum of 10. The cut off for inclusion has decided by consensus at 7 (yes, that may be minor POV, but what can you do?). Historically women have contributed very little to operatic history – not their fault, it’s the fault of past sexist societies, but we can’t change that, and there just hasn’t been enough time to see whether operas by female opera composers currently writing will survive and stay in the repertoire. Musikfabrik only contributed one list, which was quite rightly judged unreliable as it wasn’t a list, but a list of composers done to date on a website under construction. Moreschi 14:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Musikfabrik only contributed one list because that user name was initiating the request for compiling the lists in the first place, as a way of beginning the process of finding consensus, after the idea had been suggested by Adam Cuerden. There were no further contributions made to these lists because it was requested that I not participate in the discussion, as has been noted above. But the fact remains that I, posting as Musikfabrik, began the entire process which can be seen on the article's talkpage here Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive3#Collecting_Representative_Lists Jean-Thierry Boisseau 14:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

---

Giano, et al.

Initiated by User:InkSplotch at 18:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Giano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JoshuaZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Geogre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jdforrester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kelly Martin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bishonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Messages have been posted on named parties talk pages, and on AN.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This arbitration request is to examine the actions surrounding the actions and discussions resulting from Giano's behavior after Carnildo's re-admin.

Links

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#the_Giano_thread
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Giano
• Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/archive3#Making_it_up_as_you_go_along
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive29#Blocking_self-identified_pedophiles

Statement by Initiator

It's with heavy heart that I bring this arbitration request forward. It is not my intent to reignite the tempers which flared on the Administrator's Noticeboard, Bureacrat's Noticeboard, and various talk pages. It's also not my intent to declare any one party "right" or "wrong" in this, because as I see it, all parties have made such decisions for themselves. Instead, I bring this to ArbCom because I feel what fueled this fire for so long was a level of personal attacks in the form of unsubstantiated accusations which do nothing to serve the goals of the encyclopedia. I feel arbitration is necessary to give the involved parties an opportunity to substantiate their claims, and to give arbcom the opportunity to clarify what level of claims constitute opinion or personal attacks.

I've listed the following individuals as involved parties, and would like to give my reasons. (Of course, the offical list about is subject to modification.)

• Giano was initially blocked by Tony Sidaway for comments like these [3] [4]. They follow this initial post [5] in which Giano expreses his loss of confidence in what he claims is a "huge error in judgement." This evolved into his later statements which seem to claim collusion between high ranking members of ArbCom (by which I think he might mean the Bureaucrats) and Foundation members (notably, Angela) in reinstating Carnildo, acting directly against the communities wishes and to the detriment of the project.
• Tony Sidaway blocked Giano for 3 hours, and announced it on AN. The block was over turned.
• JoshuaZ blocked Tony Sidaway for 24 hours for disruption and incivility relating to the Giano block, but "other recent behavior"[6], particularly comments made by Tony later [7].
• Geogre has claimed on several occasions on AN during this discussion (now archived at AN/Giano) that Tony, Kelly and other admins have used their positions and forceful manner to intimidate users and game the system (my phrase) to win arguments, while insinuating at motives highly disruptive to the project. He has, in discussion with me, outlined his thoughts on his talk page and commented that he has no interest in collecting evidence or seeking arbitration on these users. As serious as his claims are, I feel it's disruptive not to.
• Irpen has also claimed malfeasance against Tony [8], as well as claims of cabalism and plotting amongst admins with a call for them to resign [9].
• James F began a section in the Giano discussions titled, You're all idiots. While backing off from this in the next sentance, this header sparked much more discussion and server to incense many editors. Althought I suspect it was an attempt at humor, it failed to defuse the situation and only made things worse.
• Kelly Martin, who I do not expect to participate, offered to resigned her assigned posts of Admin, Checkuser and Oversite if Giano and four admins (Bishonen, Geogre and two others) called for it. Instead, Bishonen and Geogre questioned her status as Arbitrator Emeritus and attempted to use this to influence the actions of the ArbCom (something they claim Kelly does given her level of access to ArbCom members). In response, Kelly has renounced her positions of Admin, Checkuser and Oversite, and seems to have left the project.

I request that the Arbitration Committee accept this request to examine the behavior of admins in this affair, most importantly the attacks and accusations between admins with unsubstantiated claims. It's factionalising the adminship, and leading to proposed policies that would, in my opinion, further disrupt administrative duties in the forms of Admin probation, suspension and de-adminning by giving admins the weapons to fight ideological battles against one another rather than talk things out. I would also request the Committee adress the idea fought over in this discussion "editors vs. admins" where raw edits to the main space and featured articles were used as (the only) meters by which all should be "ranked." Finally, I request that the discussions on AN, BN, and AN/Giano be accepted as prior attempts at mediation. A great number of editors and admins alike participated in the discussions on AN, and I don't feel an RFC or mediation could possibly sort out the mess at this point.

• Update: Per the reasons listed by Kelly Martin above, and discussion with Bishonen below, I have added Bishonen to the Involved Parties.

Statement by JoshuaZ

I am listed as a party in this dispute and so will comment although I think my role in it was minor. It isn't clear to me what precisely the ArbCom would be looking into if they did take this case nor is it clear to me whether the ArbCom can reasonably look into this since this does seem to involve(at least in regard to the Kelly Martin part) issues related to the functioning and structure of the Arb Com. I have really no strong opinions on most of this matter excepting my block of Tony. Given later comments he has made it seems likely that the most relevant comment in question about the "boil" (whic I considered to be the final straw) may not have been intended as a personal attack but was simply an incredibly unwise choice of wording. I therefore standby my block of Tony as the correct thing to do under the circumstances and have no comments to make about the more general issue other than to express a feeling that the entire Carnildo resysoping could have been handled more diplomatically by almost all involved parties. JoshuaZ 18:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

I agree with JoshuaZ that the block, in the circumstances of my unwise choice of words in an explosive situation, was merited for the good of Wikipedia, although the meaning that JoshuaZ and at least two other parties read into the statement was far from the one intended. I took it as a good opportunity to take a break.

I feel that the overt and admitted attempts by some editors to enlist mob rule against the bureaucrats and the arbitrators was beyond what is acceptable behavior on Wikipedia, and the repeated engagement in inflammatory accusations against the arbitration committee, amongst others, was something that merited action. I believed from the start that a three-hour block should be reviewed although to my mind this was a sensible and reasonable way of dealing with an editor who showed no inclination to moderate his accusations after warnings. Many disagreed with that block after I submitted it for review.

I think that ghirlandajo's objection has some merit, because it seems unlikely to me that some of the parties accept the jurisdiction of the Committee. Perhaps this case might be better handled by Jimbo Wales. --Tony Sidaway 18:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about "cooling off" blocks. Of course all blocks for disruption are "cooling off" blocks. That's precisely the situation in which a block of a non-vandal editor is appropriate: when his activity is damaging the encyclopedia because of his anger and he needs some time to cool down. --Tony Sidaway 04:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen

(I've removed my initial now irrelevant query, and am adding instead a statement as involved party.) The initiator InkSplotch says that "Bishonen and Geogre questioned [Kelly Martin]'s status as Arbitrator Emeritus and attempted to use this to influence the actions of the ArbCom". I sure did. Bishonen | talk 20:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

Statement by Giano

My goodness me, how quickly the arbcom can vote to hear a matter when they wish. I had been working on a statement, but it seems it has been already assessed, so as you obviously know what it contained, I won't waste my time posting it. Giano 23:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. The case hasn't even been opened yet, definitely no decision, or proposal, even, has been reached, so a statement would certainly be appropriate. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 08:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Cyde Weys

I recommend, to the strongest possible degree, that ArbCom accept this case and examine the behavior of everyone involved. --Cyde Weys 18:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved User:Ghirlandajo

I know that my statement does not bear much weight here, but I ask ArbCom not to accept this request unless it is renamed to Carnildo, et. al. The whole issue was sparkled by Carnildo's notorious RfA and the ArbCom's moot position in this case. Therefore, it is more appropriate to bring in Bcrats rather than mainspace editors like Giano. As for Tony's comments and all that followed, it seems that the matter was settled for now. Prolific editors returned to editing; admins returned to administrating. I don't see any reasons to boil this pot of bad blood until it explodes. The only result of this may be the massive exodus of Giano and other sensitive contributors from Wikipedia, to the infinite satisfaction of the other side. As for "adressing the idea fought over in this discussion editors vs. admins", I don't see how ArbCom may issue a satisfactory ruling in favor of contributors, being composed primarily of non-writing admins. InkSplotch's request is all the more ill-advised, as some parties expressed doubts in the integrity of the ArbCom and its procedures against the background of Carnildo's RfA. Bringing the case to be decided by the judge they don't trust seems the worst issue possible. Only the community in general should solve such general problems which don't involve particular mainspace editing conflicts but rather question the whole functioning and structure of the ArbCom. Let's not confuse the courtroom and constitutional assembley. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved User:Nandesuka

As the Arbcom debates whether or not to hear this case, I'd like to point out that it seems to me that one of the central complaints of some are perhaps being mischaracterized as complaints questioning the legitimacy of Arbcom. What I have read are not complaints about the legitimacy of Arbcom qua Arbcom, but rather strong concerns about the transparency of the process, in particular the fact that non-arbitrators (a) have access to the Arbcom mailing list and (b) are willing to appear to violate the privacy of that list to make enigmatic pronouncements. An inference that follows from that is "since this appears to be happening, perhaps that information channel works two ways." I view that not as an attack on the legitimacy of Arbcom, but as a critique of the particular case management processes being used at the moment. Nandesuka 18:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved User:Badlydrawnjeff

While Nandesuka above me said it very well, this also has roots in a long-standing, underlying belief that many with what would be called "power" weild it in ways that are improper or unexpected, and when flareups occur such as the Carnildo RfA or the Sidaway/Giano conflict, the end result is the same parties taking the same sides. We often joke around about "cabalism," but the perception oftentimes rears its head as a possible (if not probable) reality, and as we examine the timeline regarding this particular conflict, both named and unnamed parties show these same tendencies which should be lessened as opposed to brought out when heated discussion and dissent takes place. When it gets to the point where editors get angry at administrators because of articlespace edits, and when administrators stop assuming good faith and consider dissent and criticism trolling, it only makes problems worse. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved User:Bunchofgrapes

I would agree with Ghirlandajo's notion that the case, if accepted, should be ranamed to something more neutral -- I realize the ArbCom turns its eyes on all parties and the name is of not much import to them, but it would be reasonable to remain sensitive to the general perception among those not entirely familiar with ArbCom that in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JoeBlow, JoeBlow is the "problem". I also share the same misgivings about how dispassionate ArbCom members can be regarding some of these ArbCom-related issues.. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved User:Carcharoth

There are a lot of issues being mixed up here, and I hope the Arbitration Committee can successfully separate them out where needed. I've read through a lot of the debates, and commented in a few places, and I'd like to comment briefly here in case it is useful. To my mind the issues seem to be: (a) behaviour of users towards each other at various points; (b) concerns about transparency of Arbitration Committee procedures; (c) possible influence of those outside the Arbitration Committee on internal discussions; (d) unresolved issues from the Carnildo RfA.

Relating to point (a), the use of "cooling-off" blocks (seemingly not encouraged) is something that it would be useful to get a ruling on. Relating to points (b) and (c), it might be helpful to clarify the last two points mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Transparency. Relating to point (d), if there has not been an official pronouncement on the Carnildo RfA and the ensuing discussions, then doing so might help calm things down a bit.

Finally, the general issue of the Arbitration Committee addressing the issue of its own procedures (viz mailing lists and so forth), I was reading around the ArbCom pages and in this unofficial essay I found this: "Arguing about flaws in the Arbitration process is usually a waste of time and will make Arbitrators look dimly upon you." - can those raising issues concerning the Arbitration process (ie. transparency and mailing list discussions) be reassured that this will not be the case here? Carcharoth 23:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by (mostly) uninvolved User:Zocky

My involvement was mostly in general terms, but it seems that Kelly may have left in direct response to my comment on WP:AN, so I may be somewhat involved. Anyway, I don't think that there is anything that ArbCom can do about this - the interpersonal issues are petty and nothing new. At the same time the debate that became this case is about how the project should function, and that's for the community (and foundation, and Jimbo) to decide, not ArbCom. Anyway, the issues include the relationship between ArbCom and other editors, and I believe that it's inappropriate for ArbCom to be involved in that issue in its official capacity. (OTOH, it is appropriate and indeed desirable for arbitrators to comment on that issue in their capacity as editors and experienced members of the community). Zocky | picture popups 00:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved User:Jim62sch

The debate in which the arbcomm needs to be involved is this: is Wikipedia dysfunctional? •Jim62sch• 03:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved User:Mcginnly

I fully welcome a transparent review of these problems but I am concerned about how neutral a forum arbcom is for this - 1 Arbitrator and 2 arbitrator's clerks are named as involved in this request. Given such a close link will Arbcom feel the need to demonstrate that they are entirely impartial? Will this provide justice for Kelly, Tony and James? If they're hung out to dry will this just be seen as a rearguard action? If they're not will this be seen as proof positive that the suggestions of Arbcom impropriety are correct? Also, to successfully defend the accusation that kelly has used her influence upon the ArbCom, fairness should dictate that the mailing list be disclosed, to at least all parties involved; I'm sure everyone will agree that this is undesirable and unworkable, but how can a effective defence be made without it? I think this case seems mired from the start in intractable conflicts of interest . I agree with Ghirla about the case name change and thoroughly support Carcharoth suggestion to broaden the scope to include the Carnildo resysopping - How about a rename to "Events surrounding the Carnildo RFA" - the current name paints Giano as the defendant - the et.al is rather ambiguous. If ever there was a case for Jimbo intervention, this is it. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved User:Daniel.Bryant

Although Wikipedians are encouraged to express their concerns about Wikipedia, I feel that a precedent needs to be established regarding when a user shows contempt and mockery towards Administrators in general, as well as the Arbitration Committee. The AC should also determine whether certain users' actions towards the Administrator "group" in general and the Arbitration Committee, with numerous allegations of conspiracy and skirting the edge of decency by "demanding" people resign their roles in the community or else Wikipedia will lose "a valuable contributor", borders on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I also encourage people at WMF, including those "in-the-know", with refined bullshit testers, to have a look-in. Considering the current opinion held by some regarding the AC, opinions and rulings from "up above" may help quell some of these malicious and unsubstantiated opinions. Daniel.Bryant 11:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Accept. No prior formal attempts to resolve this mess have been claimed, but the ArbCom can hardly duck this one. Charles Matthews 18:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Facts not contested but hotly in dispute, therefore there is no point in a damaging RfC. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 01:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Rachel Marsden

Initiated by Art EllisArt Ellis at 18:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I am Arthur Ellis but I am using a sockpuppet because I was illegally banned (in spite of policy re: bio of living people)

Involved parties (confirmation)

• Rachel_Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [10]
• Bucketsofg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [11]
• Bearcat (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [12]
• Ianking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [13]
• Geedubber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [14]
• Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [15]
• Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mediation was turned down by user:Bearcat and user:Bucketsofg

Opening statement

The article violates Wikipedia policy re: biographies of living persons.

Statement by Arthur Ellis

Admins Bearcat (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Bucketsofg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have POV in this matter. They have protected poorly sourced, probably libelous article at Rachel Marsden despite warning from Jimbo Wales. The article relies on selective news coverage and a report by the Fraser Institute to smear a Canadian newspaper columnist. Bucketsofg has a long-running campaign on and off wikipedia against anyone connected with Germant Grewal, a former Canadian MP, and operates the Bucketsofgrewal.blogspot.com web page. Bucketsofg and Bearcat have illegally blocked me under the 3RR, forcing me to use sockpuppet craileithian (now banned) and this uder name to make my case, despite the fact wikipedia policy on bios of living persons expressly forbids blocks under 3RR for removal of salacious and potentially libelous material. The talk page also contains discussions by Bearcat and others that mock the bio subject (see the section where they discuss her "marriage". Marsden was found guilty once of criminal harassment. The rest of the article is a collection of allegations and unproven facts, strung topgether to make Marsden appear to be an habitual liar and a criminal. Bucketsofg has expanded on this by setting up spin-off articles on Liam Donnelly and John Stubbs, among others, as part of a campaign to smear Marsden. 64.26.147.246 21:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Other than the first line in Bucketsofg's post, there's nothing but usual fantasy regarding IPs. As usual, he does not address issues in the article, but relies on smear. For a really interesting read, go back to last March, when Mark Bourrie/Ceraurus first complained of this article and fought like hell to take out outrageous stuff like trying to link Rachel Marsden to a teacher who had lost his license (supposedly her father). Basically, Bearcat, Geedubber, Homeontherange (now RIP), and Bucketsofg, (not then a moderator) drove Bourrie, who was new to Wikipedia and who had naively registered under his own name and shared details about himself, over to the dark side of 3RR and sock puppetry. I believe that started because he tried to go anyonymous, but was constantly outed. I did not write the present article. I tried to soften, as best I could, the salacious entry, over the hue and cry of most of the listed parties. Unfortunately, this was the best I could get. Please note, too, that Bucketsofg has meddled with this page to remove evidence and arguments. He has done the same with the Rachel Marsden talk page. The article is sourced to the eyeballs, but the sources tend to be retracted stories, a selective culling of news articles, a Fraser Institute report written by a Simon Fraser faculty member (hardly a disinterested party writing to peer review or even journalistic standards), and a magazine piece written by a competitor. Keep in mind that none of the allegations, except the one regarding Morgan, ever saw the inside of a court of law. They are unproven allegations, most now more than ten years old. We need to know what Bucketsofg's obsession is, and why so many Vancouver-based Canadian admins and editors fight so hard for this terrible article and ignore criticism from Wales, among others. And talking of double standards, the Western Standard that Bucketsofg relies on for sourcing the Marsden entry is the same Western Standard he mocks on his blog: http://bouquetsofgray.blogspot.com. What you are seeing is a continuing pattern of abuse by Canadian editors. Homeontherange has been properly dealt with. It is difficult for many Wikipedia admins to understand the arcane world of Canadian politics. Bourrie/Ceraurus, who has a PhD in this stuff, was driven off by Canadian leftist editors and admins after they effectively drove him up the wall. 64.230.105.111 21:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

On Sept. 22, Bucketsofg wrote this on the Mark Bourrie talk page: "This is most disturbing. Bourrie and I have had our moments, but whoever is doing this should stop..." Then, the next day, he edited the page. Not a big deal, but it speaks to the issue of Bucketsofg's POV and bias.Arthur Ellis 17:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Rachel Marsden

I am the real Rachel Marsden, about whom this article has been written. I received an email today directing me to this "arbitration" link, and I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in. I contacted Jimbo Wales over a year ago regarding this article, at which point he weighed in on Wikipedia and appeared to agree that it was outlandishly slanderous. Since that time, the same parties have been obsessively altering this article to the point that it has become ridiculous. The user by the name of "Bucketsofg" has a blog called "Buckets of Grewal", and has been obsessed with a previous political client of mine (Gurmant Grewal) and everything related to Grewal. His Wikipedia account "history" page attests to this fact. The few other users who have maintained my Wikipedia "bio" in the slanderous manner to which it has become accustomed, have cited their own "original" research, or have cited news articles which have long since been retracted by those sources. This Wikipedia article relies on Fraser Institute material which was put together to make an anti-feminist, anti-sexual harassment system case, and written by an SFU prof who is connected with Liam Donnelly and has professor friends who were found guilty through the anti-harassment tribunal. The only other actual item on which the article relies is a Western Standard piece, which has a hate-on for me inspired by competitive jealousy (I am a conservative columnist in direct competition with them). I note that another Wikipedia user has posted these retractions on the article's "discussion" page. I believe that I am a fair-minded, reasonable individual, yet have been subject to this persistent libel on Wikipedia for well over a year. I have noted that fair-minded people have attempted to impart some fairness and legitimacy to this article for more than a year, but have been met with blocks from Canadian editors, many of whom live in Vancouver and may well be either SFU staff/alumni and/or political enemies of Grewal and/or friends and associates of Liam Donnelly. I appreciate the fact that someone at Wikipedia has created this "arbitration" section, as it gives people like myself an opportunity to air our concerns. Given the circumstances and the length of time this has been going on, I kindly request that this article about me be removed and, in the future, should another article be created about me, that the contributors stick to the documented facts about my career and life. While the salacious details of my personal life might be interesting to a choice few contributors, I'm afraid they're inaccurate and, as such, detract from the credibility that I would think Wikipedia is attempting to establish. Sincerely, Rachel Marsden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelMarsden (talk • contribs)

Note from uninvolved party

It should be noted that User:Arthur Ellis was the subject of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella, which has since banned him from editing Warren Kinsella or any articles about Canadian politics - including therefore Rachel Marsden - and also bars him from using socks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morwen (talk • contribs)

Note from an uninvolved party

Today (Sept. 20), Mark Bourrie's www.ottawawatch.blogspot.com site was hacked and the arbcom decision re: Warren Kinsella was linked to it in an attack against Dr. Bourrie. Something needs to be done by Wikipedia to stop dragging Wikipedia into this troll feud.142.78.190.137 15:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Thatcher131

Ellis is banned from editing Rachel Marsden, including the talk page. However, if he (and Marsden) have legitimate BLP concerns, there should be some means of addressing them. Note however that on September 14, Ellis filed notifications to the parties here of a mediation, rather than arbitration (he seems to have used the wrong template, and possibly been confused about the nature of the two processes, as no RFM has actually been filed). Arbitration seems premature; a content RFC, third opinion, or mediation seems in order first. Thatcher131 17:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, its not listed on the main RFM page. Thatcher131 22:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Bearcat

Starting with Arthur Ellis' allegations in his statement here, of the four edit blocks that have been applied to him in the past seven weeks, not a single one was applied by either me or Bucketsofg. And as for BLP, what AE is forgetting (or choosing to ignore) is that it specifically precludes the removal of properly documented material, meaning that his reversions did not qualify for any exemption from 3RR. And nobody "mocked her marriage" anywhere on the talk page; the only matter discussed was whether an acceptable media source could be provided to confirm that she had gotten married. (And to this day, a media source still hasn't been provided, I might add.) And furthermore, neither Bucketsofg nor I have at any time ever made a single negative comment about Marsden on the talk page — except for one mildly sarcastic dismissal of a personal attack against WP editors by an anon who was almost certainly Ellis or Marsden, there isn't a single comment posted by either Buckets or myself to that talk page which deals with anything other than policy qua policy.

There are no grounds here to even consider mediation or arbitration. As has been repeatedly pointed out to Arthur Ellis, the BLP policy that he cites in defense of his position specifically states that if an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Jimbo's comment was about a significantly different version of the article over six months ago, and cannot be taken as applicable to the heavily revised article as it currently stands; I've seen at least a dozen uninvolved editors review the article and conclude that it was one of the most carefully and thoroughly source-documented articles they had ever seen on WP. In fact, the last editor to review it on the BLP noticeboard found one source link that was even remotely problematic, and that was a link which isn't even part of the dispute here.

And both Ellis and Marsden really seem to love alleging that I have an unacceptable bias in the matter (as if they themselves didn't), even though I have never made a single edit to this article that in any way involved my own personal opinions; as an administrator, my only interest in the article is in ensuring that Wikipedia policy is correctly followed. BLP is not contravened by including the disputed material, because it's an incontrovertible, well-documented and legitimately notable fact of Marsden's life that the accusations in question were made; the article as written simply documents that reality and does not insinuate anything further than that. Whereas Ellis and Marsden have repeatedly contravened vandalism, verifiability, 3RR, autobiography and sockpuppet policies, and applied a selective, incorrect and highly self-serving reading of BLP in their crusade to remove it.

The bottom line is that Ellis and Marsden are the only people contravening Wikipedia policy here, and I'm frankly quite uninterested in taking part in any process designed to undermine Wikipedia policies by giving article subjects the right to control what Wikipedia can or cannot write about them. This complaint has no basis in Wikipedia policy; it's based entirely in Marsden's desire to sweep an inconvenient part of her past under the rug for public relations purposes despite the fact that the policy being cited specifically says that properly documented material cannot be removed from an article just because the subject doesn't like it being there.

As far as I'm concerned, any continuation of this process is giving off the undesirable message that Wikipedia policy can be overturned or ignored at will, and basically rewards Ellis and Marsden for being disruptive. Bearcat 22:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Geedubber

I haven't really edited the article for 2 months now so I don't know why I was listed as a party in this dispute. The article is properly sourced so I do not see what the beef is. I would have to agree with Bearcat's argument that Arthur Ellis is simply misinterpreting BLP policy. I would urge the arbitrators to decline this request as this just another example of Arthur Ellis trying to skirt around Wikipedia policy and trying to impose his own POV on articles. Geedubber 00:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Bucketsofg

I encourage anyone to go over to the Rachel Marsden entry, and if they find anything unencyclopedic, unsourced, or poorly sourced, to improve it or remove it, as indeed they should in any article.

In the meantime, members of the Arbitration Committee will remember having just banned Arthur Ellis (aka Ceraurus, Mark Bourrie, etc., etc.), among other things for having engaged in abusive sock-puppetry and disruption in articles about himself, Warren Kinsella (his bête noire), Pierre Bourque (a friend of Kinsella's), and Rachel Marsden (a friend of Bourrie/Ellis). They may not recall, however, that in his evidence in that arbitration Ellis claimed to have written current version of Rachel Marsden, which is not greatly different from its current state (see diff here). Indeed, I complimented him for his contribution at the time (here; his response at the time (here) gave no hint at dissatisfaction.

Why, then, the current complaint, which so clearly misinterprets the BLP? Why his erroneous accusation that I blocked him for using the sock-puppet Craigleithian to break 3RR (I've never blocked him, see my block log)? Why the strange assertion that I somehow 'forced' him to use that sock, which in any case was a sleeper account that he created months ago? Why did he use anonymous IPs to leave these little turds on my talk page yesterday and today: "You are one obsessive prick. And I know who you are." and then "You are academically and intellectually dishonest. This dishonesty will soon be made known to your peers"? On May 20, one of Ellis/Bourrie's socks, having been blocked for personal attacks and vandalism of this same sort, wrote: "Fuck you. My IP changes every six hours. I'll be back. I will cause as much Wikipedia trouble as I can!". Ellis/Bourrie's arbitration request is merely another way to disrupt: a thrown together pastiche of half-truths and error, supported by not a single diff, that is merely fulfilling his promise to cause as much trouble as he can.

In light of this, I recommend that the Arbitration Committee reject the request, not least because it thought it was banning him from the Rachel Marsden article when it ruled (so one arbitrator here). Since it is clear that Ellis intends to return to this entry once his current block passes, the arbitrators may want to clarify their decision as they vote on whether to accept or reject this case. Bucketsofg✐ 02:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:Tom harrison

Knowing nothing about Marsden before this, I read the article. Based only on our article, a casual reader would have to conclude she is either an insane lying psycho stalker, or that our article is written by people who think she is, and have worked hard to collect and maintain material to prove it. I think it might be worth looking into how the article got that way. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:Konstable

As the blocking administrator who put this "illegal" block on Arthur, I feel like I should say something, although Arthur has failed to mention me for some reason. Though I'm not mentioned here I am the administrator whose block is currently active on Arthur Ellis, I'm not sure why Arthur is accusing the others of this "illegal block". I have not read the article myself, but I have looked through Arthur's reverts reported on WP:AN/3RR and it seemed like he was reverting sourced material that several other users wanted to be kept, and not only that, but abusing sockpuppets to avoid being blocked for 3RR. If you add his previous threee blocks for 3RR violation to the equation, this just threw the whole image of good faith out the window for me. I still have not read the article in full, nor reviewed the case futher - because instead of trying to contact me to discuss the matter either by email or on his talk page, Arthur had used more socks to file an arbitration case (I believe it was reverted 2 times before). I will not give the block another thought right now as I really have big time problems in real life right now and it seems there is already enough attention on the matter. But if any other administrator feels that Arthur is right in his claim that this block is not a violation of 3RR per WP:BLP - feel free to unblock him, I will not oppose you if that's what you think (note the arbitration ruling banning him from editing that page was not yet in action at the time as I remember).--Konstable 08:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Threaded comments removed. Rebuttal can be added to own section. FloNight 04:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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

• Accept Fred Bauder 19:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Most worrying. James F. (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Charles Matthews 18:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. This issue does not look like it is going to get solved any other way. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

---

JarlaxleArtemis 3

Initiated by Psychonaut at 21:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Psychonaut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (complainant)
• JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (respondent) [16]
• Will_Beback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (JarlaxleArtemis's mentor) [17]
• Linuxbeak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (JarlaxleArtemis's mentor) [18]
• LtPowers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dozens of other Wikipedians are affected; they can join themselves to this RfAr if they so wish.

This is the third arbitration case against JarlaxleArtemis. (See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis 2) I am bringing this matter directly to arbitration because, despite repeated flagrant violations of his parole from banning, his mentors and other administrators have failed to keep his behaviour in line. His user talk page is full of threats to block or ban him, but no meaningful action has ever been taken. His mentors were given power to summarily block or ban him for parole violations, and this should have been done long before he reached his current level of disruption.

Statement by Psychonaut

Since his unbanning, JarlaxleArtemis has engaged in the following activities, almost all of which he was explicitly warned not to do as a condition of his unbanning. In theory he could or should have been banned for violating these conditions, but the administrators assigned to mentor him have for the most part only made empty threats to block him. He has been actually blocked only a couple of times for short periods, but he never learns from this and continues his disruptive activities.

• Copyright violations. He continues to contribute images and text which are not licensed under a free license and which are not used or cannot be used under the "fair use" doctrine. He has done this despite the fact that his previous two bannings and RfAs were largely about copyright violations, and that he was supposed to educate himself about Wikipedia copyright guidelines as a condition of his unbanning. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

• Flouting of WP:MOS. He refuses to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style on the basis that it is "incorrect". Other Wikipedians and administrators have to argue with him in order to accept it, but despite this he continues to flout it. [26] [27] [28]

• Blank/misleading edit summaries. He often enters blank or misleading edit summaries, despite having been warned against this. [29] [30]

• Removal of deletion tags. When people list his articles or images for deletion, he summarily removes the deletion tags. He has been repeatedly warned not to remove deletion tags. [31] [32]

• POV edits/vandalism. He's ignored consensus by repeatedly making POV edits to articles. He was temporarily blocked for this in August. [33] [34]

• Personal attacks. He continues to make personal attacks. [35]

• Removing user warnings. He has repeatedly removed user warnings from his talk page. He does this despite a prominent notice at the top of his talk page which states "Please do not remove this and other enforcement notices from your talk page". [36] [37] [38] [39]

• Vandalbots. He publically posts scripts intended to be used for vandalism. [40]

• Attempts to gain administrator privileges. He attempted to gain checkuser rights on Wikipedia and gain administrator passwords on another wiki. [41]

• Adding false/nonsense redirects. He creates dozens or hundreds of useless or obviously incorrect redirects from Unicode characters (e.g., [42], [43], [44] [45]). One gets the impression that he has an unannotated list of Unicode characters for which he creates arbitrary redirects based on their appearance rather than semantics. Many of these redirects are from illegal characters which cause Wikipedia to issue invalid XHTML. [46] He has persisted in these activities over several months despite repeated warnings on his talk page, (e.g., [47]) one of which led to a temporary block.

—Psychonaut 21:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by JarlaxleArtemis

I request an arbitration against the user Psychonaut. Psychonaut has been out to get me from the start. He is repeatedly lying and harrassing me for no apparent reason. I haven't been making any personal attacks, so the the so-called "warning" I removed from my talk page was illigitimate. As for vandalbot scripts, what the fuck is he talking about? Complete fucking nonsense. I also have not been making nonsense redirects, as these redirects are useful. Psychonaut just doesn't seem to have the capacity to comprehend many things. Attempting to gain administrator rights is complete nonsense. Psychonaut is repeatly violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith. How can I gain admin shit by pasting something in a sandbox? If you notice, my edits to Pluto were made on the first day of the planet change. Also, I don't know what that has to do with POV. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 22:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who is lying, Cyde. I propose an indefinite ban on you for trolling. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 22:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Cyde Weys

I urge the ArbCom to consider an outright ban on Jarlaxle Artemis. I only had one run-in with him recently, but it was part of a long string of ongoing low-level disruption. This run-in occurred on Pluto, with Jarlaxle changing its status from "dwarf planet" to "planet" as part of an intense edit war on that article (the IAU decision had just come down the previous day). Later he professed to have not known the IAU's decision, but I find that incredibly unlikely. He knew exactly what he was doing, and when he got into trouble over it, he tried to lie his way out. --Cyde Weys 21:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Sam Blanning

Jarlaxle has just had his community ban reinstated after discussion at WP:AN. Don't think there's anything more to do here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Second comment by Cyde Weys

It looks like this application should be rejected; JarlaxleArtemis has had his community ban reinstated and there is nothing more to do here. --Cyde Weys 01:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by LtPowers

Jarlaxle is incorrigble, uncooperative, argumentative, self-righteous, and nigh-incapable of admitting fault. This would indeed seem to be obvious grounds for an indefinite block, but I would like to see this arbitration case accepted regardless, even if only so that Jarlaxle cannot claim this was the vengeful or vindictive actions of a few "anti-Jarlaxle" admins, and so that he can clearly see the harm he's done to the encyclopedia without the extra baggage of the harm being shown by users he clearly feels are out to get him. Powers ^T 21:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Reject absent reversal of community ban. Fred Bauder 19:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Reject, yes. James F. (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. Charles Matthews 18:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Reject per above. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Tommysun

• Initiated by Tommysun Tommy Mandel 01:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Darkfred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TommySun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jefffire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Requested help from Wikipedia twice, no reply to the first, second [48]said I should tag with warnings which I did.

Statement by party 1

(amended)

I make the claim that Darkfred is POV pushing, [49]See ::" Ohh I will admit I am biased, I have never believed in them...") copying copyrighted text into article without attibution, modification of copyrighted material to support his POV, modification of quoted material to support his POV, removal of evidence that does not support his POV, deletion of archives, misrepresentation of evidence, defamation of character of known scientists, repeated and severe personal attacks, trolling, disruption of the editing process and lieing. He does all this as if it is proper, and he is the victim. To disagree with him is trolling. Darkfred demonstrates that he is not knowledgable about the research and is not qualified to determine what evidence is valid evidence. He is a threat IMO to the integrity and reliability of Wikipedia. Specific examples will be introduced on my evidence page but can be found anywhere in the talk pages (except for the archive that he deleted.)

My name is Tom Mandel, I am a nobody. However, during the past 34 years I have read a whole-lot of Eastern philosophy, quantum science, general systems theory and complexity science. I created the wholeness seminar 2000 at [50] and was the founding webmaster of [51] for seven years. I am the chairman of the Primer Group within ISSS, and our home page is at [52] You can know me by what I did.

I am not a Wikipedian, I am an ISSS researcher who followed a link to Wikipedia. Perhaps I am a Wikireader. I read two articles. I started at the plasma cosmology page, and tried to correct errors and insert evidence that the big bang was falsified by quantized redshift discovered by Tifft.. Turns out that the big four there are big bang supporters. Not much we can do about that...Still interested in plasma I found crop circles in Wikipedia. I had already researched drop circles and even wrote an essay about the Real crop circles are unreal. They are inexplicable. They have features that cannot be explained by our ordinary physics.

But the article in Wikipedia clearly gives the impression that they are all hoaxed. It was written as if the case were closed, all crop circles were hoaxed. End of story.

A good summary of the situation was stated by Gerald Hawkins, an astronomer of Stonehedge fame, in an interview during which he said "...It’s not a joke. It’s not a laugh. It’s not something that can be just brushed aside...There are whole areas in the scientific community that are not informed about the crop circle phenomenon, and have come to the conclusion that it is ridiculous, a hoax, a joke, and a waste of time...It’s a difficult topic because it tends to raise a knee-jerk solution in people’s minds. Then they are stuck. Their minds are closed. One can’t do much about it. But if they can keep an open mind, I think they’ll find they’ve got a very interesting phenomenon.

I have tried to build an article section which would include the serious investigations, especially the scientific investigations. This is one of my edits--

A controversy has developed around the question of who are the creators of the crop circles. Some claim that the crop circles are made by causes yet unknown while others claim that crop circles are made by hoaxers. Everyone seems to agree that some of the crop circles are extremely well constructed and incredibly beautiful.

This edit and almost all of the rest have been reverted by Darkfred et al. I do not revert back, I simply edit in another entry, and they simply revert it back out. I've added the dispute tag several times, they revert it back out.

It might be a good idea to use this as a test case, At stake is the reliability of Wikipedia, and while local arguments such as who hosted who on a show may be important to the parties involved, some articles have global influence requiring a global responsibility to present all sides fairly. Crop circles could be one of those.

I assumed that even a cursory reading of the record would make it crystal clear what is going on here. Appears I might not even get to the evidence page.

Scientific evidence is a reliable source,and certainly not a source that should be denied readers of Wikipedia because it introduces anomalies which the mechanistic theory cannot account for. Wikipolicy is to improve it, flesh it out, correct the typo's in good faith, not simply erase it as if it is the one with the power that rules.

UPDATE It appears that at this point I am being allowed to introduce scientific stuff. Darkfred is working with me on a paragraph which I have at [53] I do not know if this will be allowed into the article. Tommy Mandel 14:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

I am a frequent RC patroller, editor, article writer and translator on wikipedia. The particular edit he mentions above has been reverted by quite a few editors other than myself, I am simply the only editor willing to engage him in debate on the talk page.

I will be brief. I do not want to waste your time but a resolution to this problem would certainly free up a good chunk of my own wiki-time. Tommy-sun Is quite a prolific creator of work. In his time at Crop Circles he has made over 60 main page edits, of which only 2 are unreverted. In this same time he managed to post over 500 times on the talk page, mostly cutting and pasting material found on conspiracy theory web-sites. He was banned twice earlier for his interactions on Plasma cosmology . Although I do not believe he is a vandal or troll (he seems sincere), I do believe that TommySun's presence is a net negative for Wikipedia. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 02:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with jeffire below. It is interesting that tommy has not listed any of the better known editors or administrator who are reverting his edits as well. Is there some other course of action I can take to be through with this quickly, from the arbcom comments below it seems like you consider this pretty straight forward. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 06:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by "party 3"

This entire request seems frivilous to me. No other attempts have been made at dispute resolution before this RfA was filed. I contest my own involved status as well. I place a few messages on the talk page after noticing what I regarded as highly PoV edits made by Tommy detailing my opinions on the matter and reverted changes made which I regarded as clear PoV pushing. I was very surprised to find a RfA message on my userpage. I have only witnessed this dispute for a short time, but it appears that Tommy is not operating in a constructive or civil manner. Jefffire 15:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Accept, though the situation with Tommysun looks clear enough that admins could deal with him without our intervention. Acceptance does not mean admins can't still use their block button. Dmcdevit·t 06:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Reject, material must have a reliable source to be included. Fred Bauder 01:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Accept, but with Dom's comment. James F. (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. And where it says up the page you must be brief, we should hold people to that: we don't need your life story. Charles Matthews 18:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. Some vague attempt at other methods of dispute resoltion would be good to see. The ArbCom does not need to deal with every incidence of questionable editing. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Ghirlandajo

Initiated by Cowman109^Talk at 16:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) not really involved, see below -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Cowman109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Template:Wp-diff
• Template:Wp-diff

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-29 Russo-Turkish War, 1877–1878
• Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-07 Polish Cabal and myself as its leader
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-20 Crimean war
• ANI Report with a list of recent trolling and incivility
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive124#Ethnic slur
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/AndriyK#Ghirlandajo_warned
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive133#Ghirlandajo

Statement by Cowman109

Ghirlandajo has been consistently incivil towards other editors in his time here on Wikipedia and has made personal attacks as shown in the above RFC, has engaged in tendentious editing per the above Mediation Cabal cases and has recently trolled and provoked editors as shown by WP:ANI#Ghirlandajo. Also, another accusation is that he is making use of meatpuppets, such that many users come to defend him and support him in content disputes and other arguments. It also seems that wherever he goes, a certain group of users always supports him in content and user disputes, of note being Ghirlandajo's interactions with Polish users, as shown by the last ANI archive link, in particular Piotrus.

As an addendum, it seems that Ghirlandajo has failed to assume good faith of other editors he comes in conflict with, which promotes a negative environment between him and other editors. The responses to the recent ANI report also appear consistent with his behavior - if anything, it would have been better to simply leave the situation alone instead of further patronising other editors with the attitude that he is above them for his article contributions. If he would have liked to contest this block, it could have been much more civil to calmly ask for a review of the block instead of trolling with comments such as "When a stranger comes to WP:ANI and asks to block a well-established contributor... and he gets instantly blocked by a person whom that contributor criticised an hour ago... well, it is called... Wiki-justice, apparently. --Ghirla -трёп- 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC). I stand by my beliefs that his interactions with users are highly innapropriate for the encyclopedia, and while a block may not be in order, it needs to be made clear that his attitude towards other editors is innapropriate. Cowman109^Talk 20:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus

This arbitration is a suprise to me. To the best of my recollection I am not currently involved with any edit disputes with either Ghirlandajo or Cowman109, although for the record I had been involved in some major disputes with Ghirlandajo in the past. I can offer my comments in the current Ghirlandajo-Cowman dispute, as well as discuss my past experiences with Ghirla, and on the possible solution (I have thought about ArbRequest against Ghirla in the past) but as there is no current Ghirlandajo-Piotrus dispute I am not sure if I classify as an 'involved party'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party Grafikm_fr

I find this arbitration a bit quick, surprising and intempestive. Ghirla and Piotrus have been involved in a lot of disputes in the past, but the trend is clearly cooling down (as confirmed by Piotrus himself). For instance, Piotrus recently praised Ghirla for a well-written article on a Russo-Polish war, which is something rather new[54]. In any case, conflicts now follow a rather well-established DR scheme and there is no reasons to take it further. As for the recent thread on WP:ANI, it does not even remotely qualify for ArbCom.

In the light of what I and Piotrus said, I suggest that our Arbitrators dismiss this case and return the respective parties to already existing DR processes. After almost a year of quite lengthy and often disruptive processes (which incidentally saw some of the main protagonists blocked) things are finally return to normal. Let's not start the fire again please. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Addenum 1: You will note that on ANI WP:ANI#Ghirlandajo, very few users find his remarks to be incivil. Angry, yes, but not incivil. Only Tony and Dmc find them so. By the way, both should recuse themselves from the case... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 01:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to Ideogram: "Ghirlandajo has driven many editors away from Wikipedia"? Do you have any proof of that? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to Ideogram #2: "Are you now going to argue that Ghirlandajo is kind and welcoming towards those he disagrees with, that he attracts more and better editors to the project?" First Ideogram, I find your phrase is bordering on procès d'intention and is quite disturbing. Second, Piotrus is witness, I warned Ghirla many times about his behavior. Point is, things are cooling down (well, they were before that sordid RFA affair) and that's why this Arbitration is intempestive. Putting more gaz in the fire won't solve things. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party Giano

Ghirlandajo can be abrupt and curt. He does not mince his words. He is however a huge asset to this encyclopedia, and the links provided by Cowman 109 at WP:ANI#Ghirlandajo as reason to bring this case, do not in my view prove anything

• [55] A comment on a very contentious piece of Wikipedia history.
• [56] A comment on my talk page mentioning no names just his view of a situation
• [57] Again a view and a recommendation
• [58] Yet again his view, no insults or obscenities.
• [59] Some people may even call this wise advice.
• [60] No one is singled out, again he states a view - no more.
• [61] He expresses his view
• [62] He concurs on a contentious matter with another editor, in this case me.
• [63] And yet again he concurs with other editors.
• [64] I cannot imagine why this dif is even listed. It is his view in a legitimate forum for expressing it.

In all the above links, Ghirlandajo has done no more than robustly express his opinion, which he is at liberty to do. That he does not do so in the language of an 18th century courtier at Versailles may be regretted by some, but there is no Wiki-law that says this has to be so. He uses no insults, or obscenities overall he seems to feel the system is at fault, and the overriding message is that of a good wikipedian anxious to do what he considers his best for the project

I submit that on the evidence provided by Cowman 109, Ghirlandajo has no case to answer. Cowman's statement "It also seems that wherever he goes, a certain group of users always supports him in content and user disputes" is meaningless - and has, I think, no business here. The reasons for bringing this case have been given, it would be wrong to keep digging and trying to find others. Evidence for bringing the case has been brought and it is in my view inconclusive unless to be a little brusqe is a crime Giano | talk 10:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Further to my statement I would like to make the following observations. This is a preliminary hearing to see if the charges brought by Cowman 109 are worth following. The arbcom may or may not feel the evidence he has presented worth further investigation.

However, not since the days of the inquisition have others then been allowed to turn up with further charges. This is contrary to every judicial system in the civilized world. People cannot just pop into a court room where a man is being tried for an murder and say "Oh yes, by the way, on his holiday in Minsk in 1989 he stole a policeman's whistle".

Some people may feel Tony Sidaway, Ideogram, and Renata should confine their comment to the evidence presented, and that they have had ample opportunity to begin a case themselves, but for their own reasons have decided not to. Some people may construe their actions to be jumping on the bandwagon, or even kicking a man when he is down. What ever their agenda it could smack of medieval justice. Such behaviour would not be allowed in any modern western court room.

The interchanges between Ideogram and those defending Ghirlandajo in a modern court of law, would be regarded as prosecuting council, a role he has assumed, badgering a witness before commencement of trial. This would cause the trial to be abandoned and Ideogram to be held in contempt of court.

The above is merely an observation of how Wikipedia justice differs from that in Europe and North America. Giano | talk 18:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And this leads me to beleive [65] further comment is futile. The expression "For God;s sake" springs to mind. Giano | talk 07:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• To answer Mackensen's query the case concerns the points brought her by Cowman, see links above. However the case now seems to have been hijacked by Tony Sidaway who is going off on tangents unconnected to the case. His points should be dismissed in order that Ghilandajo can be judged fairly here. They are unconnected to this case. Giano | talk 07:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Ghirlandajo

I don't recall to have ever interacted with User:Cowman109. I don't remember him expressing any specific concerns on my talk. He never applied for mediation or comments of my behaviour which seemed questionable to him, to the best of my knowledge. In short, I fail to see in what am I being accused and by who. Unless it is explained what this case is about, I will not contribute to this arbitration. Please don't bother me, I have articles to write and not to discuss something of which I have no idea with someone who I don't know. Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I posted the above statement, User:Tony Sidaway came up with a statement against myself. It is instructive that when the issue was discussed on WP:ANI yesterday, no commentator except Tony Sidaway identified my comments as "inflammatory and grossly incivil". Others qualified them as "to the point", "slightly angry", and "just". Furthermore, the first time I mentioned him in my about 50,000 edits was an hour before that, when I posted this comment about the controversial re-promotion of Carnildo. Two hours later Tony Sidaway blocked me, citing that very edit as a pretext. Exhilarating, isn't it? After that, he returned to the RfA page and noted with satisfaction that "the noisy opponents of the RfA are now in the minority". Of course, Tony Sidaway didn't discuss the matter with me because he just came and blocked me immediately after reading my criticism. Did it never occur to him that gratuitous blocks of well-established contributors serve no other rational purpose than radicalizing them? It is notheworthy that in the same diffs I expressed criticism of ArbCom and Kelly Martin over Carnildo's re-promotion. The same day, Kelly Martin was quick to express her unconditional support for Tony's actions, while someone who I don't know launched an arbitration case. Well, I'm forced to give up the subject, as I was threatened with further blocks if I continue to question the validity of his behaviour. The whole affair seems to me like an attempt at revenge for my dissident opinions, which is also a nice pretext for User:Halibutt and other established ghirlaphobes from all quarters to add their 2 cents here. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel obliged to respond to Renata's statement. As a member of the Lithuanian community, she is entitled to protect it from inroads made by Russian editors. I cannot help thinking that her statement was motivated by my yesterday's edit, which led to some rewriting of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, an article about a predominantly Slavic and Orthodox medieval state. This is a purely content dispute which has been caused by the fact that articles about Lithuanian history contain some extreme statements concerning Russian history. We have been over this mined ground over and over again. I'm sorry that Renata uses this page as an equivalent of an RfC. It is not fair to deny me an opportunity to explain my own edits in detail, especially as many diffs pertain to the articles written by myself. It would have been more helpful if she had discussed what she feels problematic about my behaviour on my talk page or on the article's talk page or on RfC, rather than bringing it up for the first time on this page. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The latest accusations are so wildly different, that I fail to see anything in common between them. These are two separate cases. I remember to have had a content dispute with User:Mzajac last year, but I don't think that I have interacted with him after the ArbCom's decision concerning the subject matter of that old RfC. If we had some disputes recently or I was incivil towards Mzajac this year, I await diffs to refresh my memory. I may say for myself that I have avoided pages edited by Mzajac, knowing him for an exceedingly delicate editor who tends to overre-act to my edits. The difference of our characters is no basis for arbitration. Fred's accusation that User:Wiglaf left Wikipedia last year because of my disagreement with some of his more extreme views struck me speechless. I strongly advise to review the history of his relations with User:Molobo and his joint actions with User:Shauri, with whom I had never met in Wikipedia (cf. this and this), before making such sweeping accusations. I think that Wiglaf, with all his shortcomings, is irreplacable as an editor. I was involved in one slowly dragging content dispute with him (as User:Dbachmann may testify) but I don't recall any evidence of incivility or personal attacks there.

I was urged to trim my statement and therefore commented out my lengthy response to User:Ideogram, as the issue seems to have been settled, anyway. Since I can't see a common denominator between so many unsubstantiated accusations on seemingly unrelated matters and since I don't know which one is the main basis for this case, I follow the example of Pecher, Geogre, ALoan, and R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine), among others, and take a break until the next week in order to sort out my attitudes towards the project and all the bad blood that has characterized it of late. I shall return to this page when I understand what's going on here. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 21:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Tony Sidaway

In response to Mackensen's plea for clarity, I'll put this case into a nutshell.

Ghirlandajo's ongoing behavior casts Wikipedia in divisive terms. Pole against Russian [66], himself against "aberrant" bureaucrats [67], himself (again) against "Carnildo's [bureaucrat] buds" [68], editors against administrators [69]. The problematic behavior seems to have a long history and is not strictly related to any one incident. I think there is a behavioral problem that needs to be remedied in the interests of the encyclopedia.

Similar cases of a disruptive rabble-rousing polemicist who is also widely regarded as a good editor have come before the arbitration committee before, most notably in the Alienus case.

"Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals." (What Wikipedia is not) --Tony Sidaway 01:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If both this case and the Giano case are accepted, I suggest that they should be merged because some of the events have the same focus. --Tony Sidaway 18:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Ideogram

I first encountered Ghirlandajo in the course of mediating cases for Medcabal. He was edit-warring on two articles and refusing to discuss. My first attempt to get him to discuss was deleted as "trolling". When I tried to contact friends of Ghirlandajo to get some kind of communication he accused me of "wikistalking". He has also accused me of "revert-warring" and "sockpuppetry"

This is only my personal experience with Ghirlandajo, there are literally hundreds of similar instances. Ghirlandajo is paranoid, incivil, and incapable of assuming good faith. But the biggest problem is that Ghirlandajo believes that Wikipedia needs him more than he needs Wikipedia. As long as he has this holier-than-thou attitude he will treat the entire community with contempt. I don't know what rule this breaks, but I hope it is clear this attitude cannot be tolerated. --Ideogram 05:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Paranoia: calls the English Wikipedia "sinister" and "totalitarian" claims he was blocked for opposing an RFA implies bureaucrats are not to be trusted edit summary accusation of sockpuppetry

Failure to assume good faith: attacks another editor and his ancestors claims his opponent is a nationalist accuses an editor of being deliberately inflammatory and recommends he be banned edit summary calls previous editor a "stalking troll"

Incivility: sarcastically asks if his opponent has any arguments

Personal attacks: edit summary

Revert warring: [70]; [71], [72], [73];

Ghirlandajo continues to claim he is being persecuted over individual events and refuses to understand that he has a long pattern of unacceptable behavior that needs to be addressed. --Ideogram 09:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"I'm sorry." Ghirla, I am not trying to belittle your awesome contributions here in any way, but those two words of yours mean more to me than all the rest. I have indeed noted that you have been more accommodating of late, but it took comments by Grafikm fr and others to make me realize this was a conscious effort. I am truly sorry that this RFAr got filed in the middle of all this but it was hard for us outsiders to see what was going on.

I am now prepared to recommend this RFAr be dropped as being obsolete, or that if it is accepted, Ghirla be given the lightest possible punishment, some kind of warning I suppose. The problem appears to have solved itself. --Ideogram 07:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Alex Bakharev

As an established meatpuppet user guilty in occasional support of User:Ghirlandajo I have to remind you that with all respect the task of this project is writing an enciclopedia. Without writing the articles all our wonderful social and administrative activities are just an empty mastrubation. On this page I heared a phrase Ghirlandajo is a valuable editor but.... I am not sure everybody here understands just how valuable he is for the project.

I consider myself to be a sort of content creator, having written around 150 articles some to WP:DYK level and over 15K edits with around 10K in the mainspace. Many of my mainspace are products of AWB and Vandalism reversion, so they are not that valuable. Despite a not particular impressive results it took a significant amount of effort. I think most of people here can say something like this about your own contributions. In the case of Ghirlandajo we have more than 1000 new articles, quite a number of them of a very high standards, more than 50K edits - most of them are actually content creation, not automatic tools, very little vandalism reversion, little revert warring and empty talk - 90% is what Wikipedia is for - the content creation. I am monitoring P:RUS/NEW and more or less aware of all new articles related to Russia. Ukraine and Belarus. The quality and quantity of Ghirlandajo's work there is equal to the total of next five..ten best users (me included). Without Ghirlandajo there would be huge holes in the Wikipedia's coverage of the 1/6 the Earth. Besides this I constantly find that Ghirlandajo making valuable contributions to the spheres completely outside the Eastern European realm. Anyway I will estimate that Ghirlandajo is approximately five to ten time more valuable than an average established user or admin like me.

Yes, he has strong opinions on some problems and occasionally not very civil. Sometimes he is stubborn. Still I am finding that it is an absolute disgrace for our project that we assemble here not to praise his great efforts but to shame him or even ban him. In my own opinion such great contributors like Ghirlandajo or for example User:Halibutt who is also often a target of criticism deserve from us, people of the project, that we do our best to establish the most comfortable conditions for their work with the minimal misuse of this valuable resources on wikilawyering. Obviously it does not mean to give them a free hand in inserting their POV into the articles or biting new users, or putting really venomous attacks on established users. But otherwise I would think that in our own interests to live such people alone and let them work for our project. abakharev 12:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Rspns to User:Ideogram. I am not aware of any productive user diven away by Ghirlandajo. Who are you talking about? abakharev 13:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by non-involved party User:Pan Gerwazy

First I would like to beg administrators' indulgence, as this is my first attempt at involvement in such matters.

This whole affair is an aftermath of the dispute over the Russo-Turkish War. That User:Ghirlandajo does not remember that User:Cowman109 was involved there too ([[74]]) does not testify to bad memory, but to the fact that he is working so hard at this project that he simply could not possibly remember all brief encounters of that kind. The problem with mediation there was that User:Ideogram insisted that everyone deleting the reference to a book by an Armenian genocide denier (some Turkish editors were using the article to introduce the book as a trustable academic source into Wikipedia) should explain why (s)he did that, whereas the problem with that book and its author had been discussed at length on the talk page already.

I did not exactly see eye to eye with Ghirlandajo at that page ([[75]] , but as the attempts at "mediation" were obviously only exacerbating the situation with Ghirlandajo claiming User:Ideogram to be a troll or a sockpuppet, I did some digging into past encounters between Ghirlandajo and Ideogram and told Ghirlandajo on his talk page what I had found (evidence of possible stalking) and advised him not to react to a rather ambiguous comment by Ideogram before, which sounded like an invitation to a revert war. ([[76]] and subsequently [[77]]) Apart from the stalking (see further evidence [[78]]), Ghirlandajo also accused Ideogram of sockpuppeting. The point being that before Ideogram arrived on the scene as mediator, an anonymous IP, the Ghirla stalker, had been working in unison with Turkish editors in a revert war against Ghirlandajo: [[79]] and [[80]]. After Ideogram arrived, this anonymous IP more or less left the Russo-Turkish scene, thinking he had done enough damage there, and went on to other pages.

Now User:Piotrus is flabbergasted to see himself presented as an interested party. I am not. He was dragged into this conflict because no one else could be found who may better damn Ghirlandajo. In fact, this "affair" as I called it at the beginning of my statement, has been going on for some time, since the end of June: [[81]]. Why do I get the impression that this is a cabal of two who have waited for Ghirlandajo to be trivially blocked on incivility to present a Request for Arbitration? In any case, including User:Piotrus indicates how weak this case was from the beginning and that it was started as a fishing operation – it was believed someone else was bound to report further evidence of annoying language from Ghirlandajo to this Request. A request that is rather untimely, because Ghirlandajo has recently decided to keep to writing and improving articles and leave the bickering to those who are not so good at writing an encyclopaedia - and is trying to keep himself to that proposition.--Pan Gerwazy 23:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (trimmed to 490 words according to MS Word)

Statement by non-involved party User:Renata3

I completely agree with User:Ideogram. Ghirlandajo is uncivil and insulting with very strong Russian POV. The incidents are not isolated cases, but overarching patters of behavior developed through years and months. Just no one got the guts do anything about it because, as Alex Bakharev nicely explains, Ghirlandajo did write 1000 articles.

Some examples of Ghirlandajo incivility:

• [82] putting in a nice pink box on top of his talk page that "The edits of established ghirlaphobes from Poland and former Polish dominions will be promptly removed, unless their proconsular leader is defrocked"
• [83] threatening to enforce the disclaimer described above in reply to a good faith questions on his recent edits, and accusing editor of trolling and nationalism
• [84] keeping up with his promise above
• [85] keeping up with his promise above.
• [86] accusing User:M.K of "Russophobic hand" when that particular sentence in the article came from 2004.
• [87] edit warring over his personal opinion on "reconstructed" or "recently built" castle

Some examples of POV edits:

• [88] defending POV phrasing: "These brilliant feats of arms — utterly unprecedented in Russo-Polish relations..."
• [89] removing external link and image that supports architect not being Russian
• [90] removing categories not to show he was French-Russian
• [91] describing Red Army military campaign as "walked across Polish borders"
• [92] and finally, recognizing his own POV on user page

He even thinks that he owns articles:

• [93] reverting "unexplained" edits, but this is Wikipedia where people are encouraged to edit freely, no?
• [94] revert warring on image placement (yes, he got blocked for that)
• [95] again, image layout
• [96] demanding to cite policy on changing image caption

While browsing through contributions, I did not seem to catch a single attempt to compromise, alter his original stand, to meet somewhere in between. He seems to have this "my way or the high way" notion. I urge ArbCom to see this case not as Ghirla vs Piotrus as originally presented, but Ghirla vs community. He has been a problem user for a very long time. I doubt anyone could argue that he is incivil. Yes, some like Alex, can and will point out to his numerous contributions, but is that a license to be a dick? Renata 17:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Quick reply to Ghirla: I did ask you on your talk about one of the diffs I supplied. No response so far. As to "revenge" for Grand Duchy of Lithuania: I made not a single edit to that article and not a single diff I provided is about you editing that article. Here, again, Ghirla thinks he is being "hunted" for isolated incidents, when really these are patterns of behavour repeating again, and again, and again on different articles and Wikipedia namespace. Renata 15:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party Bishonen

I'm certainly not part of any group of users habitually defending Ghirlandajo; in fact in the only dialogue I've had with him, in April of this year, he was wounding and inconsiderate, and I've given him a wide berth ever since. Nevertheless, I urge arbcom to reject this case. In fact I urge Cowman109 to withdraw it. I believe, after a sampling of Ghirlandajo's more recent contributions, that he is already well on the way to communicating on-wiki with more consideration for others. (Or that he was, as the circumstances around his recent 3-hour block and around this RFAr will surely tend to the opposite effect.) The recent diffs posted by Cowman on ANI are IMO by no means personal attacks or incivilities, they're mere expressions of opinion in appropriate venues. I clicked on them lazily, expecting to have my preconceptions confirmed—"oh, yeah, Ghirlandajo, rude bugger"—and was astonished to see what kinds of edits are now being called "incivility and trolling". Please just look at them, Giano lays them out above. In the ANI discussion following on Cowman's list of diffs, some strong protests were lodged against the treatment of Ghirlandajo, and incomprehension was expressed of why these diffs were even being posted (a puzzlement I share). See especially the fully argued comment by Irpen on Tony Sidaway's actions ("dangereous, unwarranted and harmful", as italicized by Irpen). What Tony did was post a warning on User talk:Ghirlandajo that referred to the edits in question as "gross incivility and what appear to be trolling or deliberately inflammatory comments"[97] (IMO a provocative description) and then he blocked Ghirlandajo for this response. The block reason given is "Unreasonable and defiant response to request to tone down after multiple instances of gross incivility"[98] I'm flabbergasted by this. "Unreasonable" might equally well be applied to Tony's insistence that these edits are grossly incivil, and as for defiant, WTF? (That stands for "What The Flap-doodle".) Users don't get to defy admins now—that's a block reason? What are we, 19th-century headmasters at a really strict public school? If this kind of treatment "encourages" Ghirlandajo to be more civil, I'll eat my cascading style sheets—where's the realistic psychology? There is too much blocking for putative, subjectively defined (as there is no other way of defining them), "NPA violations", and it only seems to be getting worse. The idea of blocking an editor one finds abrasive in order to give him/her "time to cool down" or an "opportunity" for introspection or whatever (a notion also mooted in the recent User:Giano debacle) seems to me to be mere Newspeak, and just about equally patronizing as planting officious warning templates on established users. Did anybody ever improve in civility, let alone introspection, by being talked down to in this way?
The most important point I want to make is that I think Ghirlandajo had already seen the light and was being more congenial. That's the impression I've formed from a sampling of his recent contribs. Of course I may have missed stuff, but better-informed editors are saying the same thing above, I see. (See statement by Grafikm_fr). I believe that the complaints made at the old RFC which is listed as evidence above and which was brought in December 2005, are essentially obsolete. I would fully endorse Ghirlandajo's request for more recent evidence. Finally, it's not an admin job, or even an arbcom task, to fix people. Yes, Ghirlandajo probably does think the project needs him more than he needs it; yes, he goes on a lot about his contributions; yes, it's annoying; so? I'm annoying, you're annoying. Wikipedia is not the bed of Procrustes for reworking people's personalities all into the same approved mold. For instance, and this is just one minor example, we're not all Americans. There needs to be room in the project for a fiery Sicilian like Giano, a rancorous Swede like me, an... annoying Russian like Ghirla. To some of us, the dominant American/British wiki discourse (which I'll refrain from offering any stereotype of) can even be annoying in and of itself. More headroom, please. Bishonen | talk 19:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

Statement by uninvolved party user:Geogre

This is an absurdity wrapped in travesty. Unpleasant people are normal. People who are arrogant, abrasive, imperious, intemperate, and even malicious in their hearts are normal, and Wikipedia is not a project only for saints. There is no policy against being curt or even nasty. There are multiple policies against disruption of Wikipedia, and in this case the disruption is being caused by Tony Sidaway. It is not that I endorse any particular nastygram by Ghirla, but rather that the idea that dissenters are to be blocked and then arbitrated when they "don't get the message." The message is to be nice, effectively, since an honest statement of dissent is incivil. Those against Carnildo's reappointment are in "the minority," but RFA was never 50/50. The moving goal posts on his RFA have gotten several people to either leave or express outrage. If outrage is now a blockable offense, then leaving is the only option. There is a policy that says we don't attack each others' persons. That is all it says. Failure to please the administrators is no crime. Seeing administrators as being in a conspiracy is no crime. Only when we try to run with jackboots do we justify every malicious thing that our detractors can say, and this case gives every wild eyed opponent of Wikipedia's administration the perfect justification because it is absolute evidence. Geogre 20:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party user:Mzajac

Perhaps there is no way to know that Ghirlandajo's behaviour has driven any editors away from Wikipedia, but for several months I have chosen to edit in topics where he is not active, and actively avoid participating in any discussion where conflict with him is likely. His extremely unpleasant manner of participating in disputes is hard to take, and I could certainly see how it could cause other editors to withhold contributions. I'm glad to see things have been improving. —Michael Z. 2006-09-08 18:48 Z

Statement by uninvolved party Fred-Chess

I hesitated to post this, becase I feel that people leave Wikipedia on their own behalf, and not because of others.

But since it is repeatedly questioned whether anyone has left Wikipedia because of Ghirla, I will point my finger towards User:Wiglaf -- an administrator with 10k+ edits -- who left Wikipedia in December 2005. His Special:Contributions/Wiglaf makes it obvious why he left.

Statement by uninvolved party by User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

Normally, I try to stay as far away from the meat-grinder known as Arbcomm as humanly possible. But the defendant known as Ghirla, has invoked not only my name but that of my departed friend and one of my wiki-mentors, Wiglaf. Fred Chess' above comments are correct, Ghirla was in no way responsible for Wiglaf's departure nor was Molobo. While they certainly did not give him reason to stick around, neither did they drive him off.

• Second point, Ghirla and I are not friends. Like many here, he and I have had our differences in the past. Sometimes unpleasant, heated exchanges in which certain derrogatory terms have been traded. I blame him no more than myself (afterall it takes two to Tango, right?). I quite frankly find him a boorish Russian nationalist. He doubtless views myself as an Ugly American redneck. But so what?! At the end of the day we don't hate eachother...we tolerate eachother, we agree to disagree and we respect eachother as editors, scholars and gentlemen. We see beyond our differences of opinion, personality and nationality and put up with eachother because we realize that having us both here makes this place and this project better than if one of us departs on account of the other. Which leads to my-

• Third point, Ghirla does damn good work, and he does A LOT of it. Even his foes must acknowledge this. Overlooking, downplaying or ignoring this fact, is shortsighted and (in my POV) foolish. The defendant's personality should not be allowed to overshadow this fact. in fact, many of the best writers,both here and out there on earth where it really matters, are opinionated, outspoken, contentious, cranky, ill-tempered assholes. Bishonen makes this point quite well above.

• Point the Forth, "You can't take away peoples' right to be assholes". If you don't know where that quote is from, I suggest you go see Demolition Man (film)...go ahead I'll wait till you're done. And when you try to take that right away you only make things worse.

• Point Number Five, is more of a question really, why is Ghirla really here? Because he is a churlish Russian Bear? Or because, like Karmafist, he's an outspoken opponent of the increasingly authoritarian , heavy handed and (dare I say) arbitrary power structure here on Wiki:en? Surely if edit warring and disruption are the charges, why isn't User:Molobo here? If having, as someone (not me, unfortunately) once described, A "temper like a harvest combine inside an orphanage", is a crime, then why isn't User:Kelly Martin here (again)? Both are just as guilty, but are far less productive contributors than Ghirla, which to my mind makes them more expendable for the good of the project and the community. If you must have a witch hunt, try going after the real witches for a change.

• Point (not a number!) Six, this project really does need Ghirla and his like more than they need it. That he is here now, represents a failure of all the normal channels of mediation, dispute resolution and community building. Taking punitive action against him for any of the above "sins", would only further compound these failures.

But, if Wikipedia desires to shoot itself in the foot once more, who are we to stand in the way. Trying to roll this here growing boulder upside an increasingly steep and rocky mountain is getting tiresome. There is enough knowledge and talent involved in this Arbcomm case alone to start our own Wiki. And we will learn from the mistakes and maybe get it right this time, by creating a community and project where knowledge and good writing are welcomed and rewarded (Wow what a concept!). So either learn to put up with us, as we put up with you, or bid farewell to "an annoying Russian", "a fiery Sicilian", "a rancorous Swede" and "a lazy, mildly dyslexic AADD afflicted bastard, with a Scots/Irish temper, courtesy of my ancestors which has been deep fried by a Southern climate and upbringing Y'all." Hmm maybe if we do start our own Wiki, we should call ourselves the Disgruntled Wikipedians' Breakfast Club BTW, I'm only half joking...but which half?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

A query from Mackensen

It's unclear from the above if this request concerns Piotrius and the Russo-Turkish War or Tony Sidaway and Carnildo's RfA. I'm having real difficulty imagining a case that includes both. Could someone wiser than I explain what the hell is going on? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party by Dbachmann

as per Bish above, I urge arbcom members to reject this request. No coherent case is built. Ghirla is an extremely productive editor (40,000 edits?); yes, his behaviour has been problematic in the past; for all I know, it has improved significantly. A stale rfc from last December does not build an arbcom case, and I take it the arbcom has more pressing duties than generally reviewing and judging the sum of a user's 40,000 edits. If there is any recent, urgent matter, let Cowman submit another to-the-point rfc first. Presenting diffs such as these [99] [100] as "evicence", as Cowman does, seems to indicate wikistalking on Cowman's part rather than any misbehaviour (let alone RfAr-able offences) on Ghirla's. dab (ᛏ) 09:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party Peripatetic

I've had very little interaction with Ghirlandajo, maybe a couple of times back in February when I worked on a couple of Russian articles. But as far as Wikipedia is concerned, this man is worth his weight in gold. Whether it's quality of articles or quantity of edits, it's hard to beat what he has contributed to WP. What we need is more editors like Ghirlandajo and less of the ponderous bureaucracy that seems to have mushroomed in WP over time. More creators of high-quality content and fewer chatterboxes and hangers-on would be a positive for the project. It'll be a sad day if Ghirla ever decides to pack up here and go off to RU:WP. --Peripatetic 17:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Halibutt

Firstly, having been conflicted with Ghirlandajo over a variety of issues in the past I'm not that uninvolved, but I believe hardly anyone is. And especially people who have ever came in touch with Ghirlandajo. Anyway, as has been pointed during the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo, he is a good editor, with great knowledge and ability to share it. I can recall hundreds of his articles on Russia's historical landmarks, towns or people, and most of them were good at the very least.

However, he has a huge problem with dealing with people and especially so if anyone disagrees with him. It seems to me that when in conflict over some issue, the most natural reaction for him is to jump to personal remarks, offences, accusations, name-calling and other such uncivil remarks. Typically, his reaction to anything he disagrees with is somewhere between soflty unpleasant and downright offensive, even to new editors new to Wikipedia. It seems to me that he's seen the light, which in his own eyes justifies any kind of behaviour and any kind of vocabulary. //Halibutt 06:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. As to people leaving Wikipedia because of Ghirlandajo's incivility, I guess this comment might shed some light on why did User:Rydel leave. //Halibutt P.S. II As to what R.D.H. wrote above in his point (not a number) six, I'm not sure that the failure of processes that were meant to change Ghirlandajo's ways could be blamed entirely on the processes themselves. Imagine a criminal going out of jail and then committing the very same crime again. Sure, it is a failure of the entire process of re-education, but it's the guy to go to jail again, not the chief warden. //Halibutt

Response to Statement by Halibutt by Grafikm_fr

Well, in the light of recent events, I just thought it would be nice to dot the "i"s about someone leaving because of another.

Take this nice diff: [101]

Written by Renata (party to this case, incidentally):

I have decided just to simply fuck it, and tell the nasty and ugly truth: the only solution out of this nonsense is for someone to quit. So let me make the start. (...) Hali, good luck on further destruction of Lithuanian community on WP. And yes, I do have the balls to say: I DO have a problem with Halibutt.

Do you know the story of the kettle who accused another object which name escapes me of being black? Well, we have kinda a similar one here, with Halibutt accusing Ghirla of making some editors leave... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by ALoan

I was not involved in the alleged historical issues with Ghirlandajo. However, I believe these should stay where they are, in the past. The question is how he behaves now and in the future.

From what I can see, the worst that can be said of his behaviour now is that he does not mince his words, and he does not suffer fools gladly. If that requires an ArmCom case, then so be it, but I would invite the ArbCom to also investigate the surrounding circumstances, and, in particular, the recent block by Tony Sidaway (ignoring a block at the end of July that was quickly reversed, his second block this year). Do any of the cited links show any evidence of the alleged "gross incivility" complained of? Does an "unreasonable and defiant response" to an admin (while not accepting that that was an accurate characterisation of his response: indignant, I would call it) justify a block for 3 hours?

I have written before that "Wikipedia is not maiden aunts' tea party. We debate issues fully, frankly and robustly; and we should not be afraid to express our views (within the accepted policies) for fear that others may get attacks of the vapours. Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, and that goes just as much, if not more, for talk page and user talk pages." This was in reponse to a suggestion that Giano should be blocked for one month, not because of anything he had done, but pour encourager les autres. I hope this is not a similar case. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party Errabee

In real life, nationalism abounds in both Poland and Russia. These sentiments are bound to occur on Wikipedia. Recently, we've had a number of pro-Polish and/or anti-Russian conflicts on Wikipedia and Commons. This RfAr seems to be at least partly due to this same phenomenon, attacking the most prominent pro-Russian member. By accepting this RfAr, the ArbCom would succumb to this Polish nationalist movement. I therefore urge the ArbCom to consider very carefully if they should accept this RfAr. Ghirlandajo's recent actions, especially those mentioned by Renata, must be seen in the context of extreme Polish POV pushing, which he is trying to fight. Errabee 23:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that comments like above were exactly the root of problems we had with Ghirla in the past - problems, which I'd like to stress, seem to have diminished now (as I state above). I'd like to take this opportunity to state that the above comment, completly unfounded and serving only to antagonize and create divisions and conflict between nationalities,is quite uncivil and I hope arbitrators and other readers of this topic will reprimmand Errabee for it - less in a few months we deal with RfArb about that user. PS. To be clear: as a Polish editor of Wikipedia I feel quite offended by the above remark.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

How is this unfounded? In the last month alone we've had the move of Polish September Campaign to Invasion of Poland (1939), the Anarchist League of Ingria and other Ingria related topics, anti-Russia sentiments at Talk:Vilnius and the proposed deletion of the {{PD-Soviet}} template and that's only what I remember. I don't seem to remember any pro-Russian movements, whereas anti-Russia sentiments are abundant. Renata's so-called evidence, especially ones like these (her third example of POV edits), is a complete travesty. Removing a French-Russian category is not POV when his family lives in Russia for almost 200 years (remained there after Napoleontic war of 1812). The presenting of that kind of evidence (and the whole way this RfArb is presented) creates divisions and conflict between nationalities. Mine was simply a statement of fact, not unfounded as I've proven, and certainly not meant to antagonize. And as a last note, speaking in soccer terms, asking for a yellow card is not nice and I am quite offended by your comments. Errabee 10:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not an expert on anti-Russian sentiments on Wiki, and from he examples you give above I am familiar only with the case of movement of PSC to IoP(39), which was done through a proper WP:RM procedure and certainly not with any 'anti-Russian' intention (nor outcome). What I found offending in your post was the suggestion that there is some 'Polish nationalist movement' (WP:CABAL anyone?), and that Poles are prosecuting Russians on Wikimedia projects. PS. Considering that this RfA was not initiated by the Polish editors, and the two who spoke here (me and Halibutt) seem (IMHO) to be taking a neutral stance, your assertion that the 'Polish nationalist movement' is trying to influence ArbCom with this RfArb is pretty bizzare (and offensive).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party MBuk

Just a shor rhetoric questions to all who advocates here Ghirla:

• Should active and valuable contribution to WP be considered as an exuse for insulting other users, breaking the basic WP policy WP:NPOV, refusing to discuss the differences with othe contributors, edit warring, etc.?--Mbuk 17:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Threaded dialog removed: wait for the case to be accepted and you'll have all the rebuttal opportunities you ever might want. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC) (acting as assistant clerk)
• removed threaded dialog from Renata's statement. Each party comments go into their own statements. -- Drini 18:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Threaded comment removed; add rebuttals to own section. --FloNight 12:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/2/1/2)

• Recuse, but urge acceptance per my statement on ANI. Dmcdevit·t 00:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 17:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. - SimonP 19:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• A comment, for now. I am unsure whether or not to accept. I do believe a case could be made; the phrase I keep hearing as noted above is "he is a prolific and valuable editor but..." The "but" happens to be a large one; I have seen from Ghirlandajo, consistently, comments that make me wince at their abrasiveness, and no one, no matter how otherwise good an editor, should be making them. And yet this is a somewhat incoherent case and not a strong one, with no real specific incident to pin down. In light of comments that he has been making conscious efforts to tone it down, no vote for now; if this is truly the case I would far rather see it continue than set these wheels in motion. Perhaps an alternative to arbcom could be considered, with a reconsideration of the request if this is not sufficient? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• I'm with Mindspillage on this. Charles Matthews 09:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Reject, but echoing Kat's concerns. James F. (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 07:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Reject, for now. If things do not improve, suggest bringing a more concise case covering recent actions only. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella

I hate to be a pill, but in this case, two arbitrators amended the prinicple

• A set of users or anonymous editors who edit in the same tendentious pattern or engage in the same disruptive tactics may be presumed to be one user. The provisions of an arbitration decision may be enforced on that basis.

with the addition

• Yes to this when the ArbCom has had time and reason to come to grips with a situation. It is not a great idea for individual admins to apply the same reasoning, on the fly. Mistakes then get made.

Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is under a 5 day block for disruption and sockpuppetry. 64.230.112.190 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) today performed characteristic vandalism, including calling Warren Kinsella names [102] and blanking a section of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement [103]. Two other IPs 142.78.190.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 64.230.111.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which are consistent with Ellis' venues and manner, also edited articles from which Ellis is banned. Based on the findings in this case, should this IP be treated as an Ellis sock (in which case triggering enforcement against Ellis), or should they be treated as de novo vandals. Thatcher131 20:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Another wrinkle for clarification. The arbitrators' ruling is

"Arthur_Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from Warren Kinsella and articles which relate to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. Any article which mentions Warren Kinsella is considered a related article for the purposes of this remedy. This includes all talk pages other than the talk page of Mark Bourrie.:

"Today one of the IPs mentioned above made this edit, removing the Warren Kinsella section from the Bourrie article. This edit raises the question whether Mark Bourrie is still covered by the ban. Bucketsofg✐ 22:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume that means he is banned from all related article and talk pages including Mark Bourrie but not Talk:Mark Bourrie. Thatcher131 00:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That is my reading of the remedy. FloNight 05:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Still wondering whether to hold Arthur Ellis responsible for the contributions of the IPs. Thatcher131 05:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible (encore)

I have asked for a clarification on my arbitration [104], but got no response there, so I will try it here. My comment was:

“ I'm confused. Somehow the ArbCom did not find my edits to be "tendentious," yet the probation is about that. How is this logically possible? ”

Intangible 10:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox:request for clarification of clarification

There is a new ruling that Eternal Equinox, aka User:Velten is limited to a single account; and after a lot of carry-on (some of it appears at the foot of this section), she seemed resigned to following it. However, today she again edited anonymously, supporting herself at Promiscuous (song) and making this sneaky revert. There was no apology or "oops, forgot to log in" or anything of that nature, in fact the IP had already been used for another edit four minutes earlier. I assume not very much good-faith forgetfulness in this case. (I know, I know, but with respect, the arbcom hasn't already spent as much good faith on the editor as I have.) She apparently "foresaw" herethat it would happen soon, even though I can't say I can remember the diligent Eternal Equinox (etc) persona having any tendency to forget to log in. Anyway. Does the ruling have any teeth? It doesn't specify any penalties for editing anonymously. Can she be blocked for it? If not, I foresee she soon won't log in at all. (As above, on the good faith already spent.) Bishonen | talk 19:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC).

"All edits by Eternal Equinox under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user." This was intended to mean enforce as per WP:BAN. Revert on sight, dole out whatever blocks are necessary to get it to stop. It's rather like fighting vandalism. Dmcdevit·t 05:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to Bishonen: yes, I predicted that I might edit anonymously and I did. (Occasionally it happened when I used Hollow Wilerding, but that was long ago, so I can't remember.) If I do this again and another edit following from the Velten account occurs, I'd appreciate that I don't have to explain myself. Like I said, it happens because the browser logs you out sometimes and I didn't realize it. So I don't want to have to explain each time; because I've told everybody here, you'll know that it's me accidentally editing anonymously.

However, I was editing Promiscuous (song) and Loose (album) as early as these edits:

• Promiscuous 1
• Promiscuous 2
• Promiscuous 3
• Loose 1
• Loose 2
• Loose 3
• Loose 4

To EM: indeed I'm a fan of Nelly Furtado, but Gwen Stefani is still the best; don't be silly now. I wasn't harassing you and please don't block me if you aren't aware of the details. Discussion should always be incorporated and consensus might be achieved.

By the way, the 64.231 cannot be blocked upon sight since it's from a library. If it's musically-related, it's likely me, but there's still a chance it won't be. I'm saying this just so everybody knows. Velten 21:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Your previous edits to Promiscuous (song) consist of nothing but updating chart positions and minor rearrangements of the text, which is what you have done for dozens of song articles. Are you meaning to tell me your decision to revert one of my edits and completely overhaul a whole section of the article wasn't because I'd edited it just six hours before? This edit to Say It Right is equally worrying. Strangely enough, your first edits to any Nelly Furtado-related article occurred right after I told you I was a fan of her and owned her latest album (and the tone of your reply indicated you weren't even sure who the woman was). Coincidence? I think not; let's not forget, from the same period, [105] and [106], [107] and [108], [109] and [110], [111] and [112], [113] and [114]. Or, from before that, [115] and [116], as well as [117], [118] and [119]. Or how about [120] and [121] less than three weeks ago: piddling edits made to then-FA of the day Simon Byrne, to which user:Giano made major contributions that led to it becoming an FA. And I haven't even dug up the diffs that show you making equally trivial edits to articles watchlisted by Bishonen, Bunchofgrapes, and whoever else you've decided to harass. It's quite clear all of these were made with the intention of irritating other editors and scratching away at their patience, and regardless of whether you'll admit it, you're doing this again. There's nothing vague or open to interpretation about it. Not only that, but you're edit warring on Promiscuous (song) over the same issues you edit warred about on Cool (song), from which you were banned from editing for a period after you attempted to assume ownership. You're on extremely thin ice here. Extraordinary Machine 14:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli

just a quick note that now that User:Kehrli is banned from editing m/z or presumedly articles about mass spectrometry, he is now moving on to export his cranky beliefs onto physical constant and to dimensionless number (although i agree with him that renaming it dimensionless quantity was a good idea). but he has some personal pet theory that dimensionful physical constants are essentially equivalent to dimensionless fundamental physical constants which is contrary to the present widely accepted state of physics. we (User:Army1987 and i) have reverted his factually incorrect changes to both articles and have tried to reason with him from multiple angles and his responses is to say without any content that our explanation supports his fallacious position, to misrepresent our positions and repeat the misconception as if nothing was ever written by any of us to explain what was wrong with it. he is basically repeating that the widely accepted wisdom is a misconception and then replacing it with his own misconception. i think he is trolling, but am not entirely sure. i am sure he's a crank. i have now tired of dealing with him, but if he tries to reinsert this junk, i'm afraid an edit war will ensue. i need help from admins who are real physicists to be able to examine Kehrli's claims (which he tries to make sound reasonable, but they are fundamentally misconceived). r b-j 19:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible

Please see this WP:AN/I discussion regarding my involvement in this case. The general feeling, it seems, is that this case needs to be revisited for the following reasons:

1. I was never informed that I was a party to the case;
2. neither I nor any other editor could thereby provide evidence in my defense;
3. no evidence to which I could respond was presented against me;
4. and the action taken against me did not have the support of the required majority.

Thank you, in advance, for your time and consideration. Best wishes, --AaronS 01:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: I shall be very inactive until 30 September (preparing my thesis, taking GRE, and applying to grad schools). If it is decided that this issue should be re-examined, please keep this in mind. Better yet, feel free to keep this on the backburner and deal with more pressing problems for the time being. --AaronS 03:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The evidence was your edit warring and prior blocks. Please offer actual reasoning why you should not be on probation, rather than procedural arguments against how it was done. Dmcdevit·t 04:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If that is the evidence, here is my short response: two of the administrators who blocked me for WP:3RR have since re-examined their decisions and regretted them.[122][123]The first block was deserved, but I had violated 3RR inadvertently. I discussed the situation with the admin who blocked me, and he lifted the block, because I was at the time doing a lot of work to improve the New England article. I stayed away from anarchism for a while, because it is truly a difficult page to work with.

One always walks a thin line while trying to improve controversial articles. I have had the benefit of working with several excellent editors from all sides of the ideological spectrum. In fact, I'm amazed at how some people can have such strong feelings about either side of an issue and still work together and reach compromises through civil discussion. This is how things usually proceed at anarchism when a few inflammatory editors are not around -- namely, User:RJII, User:Thewolfstar, and User:Hogeye and their various admitted or proven socks. When they or their sock puppets are involved, things usually get heated up very quickly, and that's when edit wars start to crop up.

I try to avoid edit wars as best as possible. When I revert, I try my damnedest to revert without edit warring. Or, I only revert sock puppets of banned users, suspected or proven. I should note that I rarely revert people who are simply suspected of being sock puppets, unless they have come from out of nowhere and are making the same edits or arguments as a recently banned user without any discussion (see User:That'sHot and User:DTC). As soon as they start engaging in discussion, I don't care whether or not they are sock puppets, and am happy to have them on board as long as they play nicely. If a sock puppet is obliged to edit in the best interests of the article, then there's no harm done. Unfortunately, their talk page discussions tend to descend into some nasty stuff.

In conclusion, with an examination of the current evidence, if I were to be put on probation it would be for nothing more than having a one deserved 3RR violation block on my record, a block that was soon lifted. I am a helpful, cordial, friendly editor, and quick to apologize to those whom I have wronged. I do not like edit warring, and find it pointless. It achieves nothing. I don't mean that philosophically, either. I mean that literally. What an article says right now doesn't matter, so long as there are other people who think that it shouldn't say that, and who can back up their claims with verifiable, reliable sources. At the same time, socks of banned users should be reverted, if only because they are a nuisance. I also do not edit tendentiously. Very few of my edits are controversial, and they are usually either (a) common opinion or (b) backed up with sources.

I think that you will find that most of my edits are useful, and that all of the editors who get along well here also get along well with me. People need to work on controversial articles like anarchism, and those articles need to be watched; however, it is very difficult, time-consuming, and sometimes frustrating.

Lastly, if there were 11 arbitrators in the beginning, and 1 recused himself/herself, then 6 is still the majority; 6 is the majority in a group of 10, and 5 would only be half. Forgive me if I'm using the wrong numbers, but if I am not, then this whole discussion seems rather moot. --AaronS 13:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The abstention of User:SimonP from Remedy 3 was treated in the same manner as a recusal, reducing the majority for that motion to 5. The motion passed. Evidence was presented demonstrating that AaronS was blocked for edit warring, and a Finding to that effect was made in the case. I regret that neither the arbitrators nor the clerks informed AaronS that probation was being considered in his case. This was an oversight. --Tony Sidaway 04:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, since Aaron is currently busy, I will try to do what I can to explain why he should not be on probation. As you know, his first block was overturned after he explained the situation. The blocking admin in the second case later apologized and said they wouldn't have blocked had they had more information at the time of the block, but since the block had already expired by that time he was never unblocked. [124] It appears as if the blocking admin from the third block may feel the same way, although they didn't explicitly say they wouldn't have blocked, but I think it was implied. See for yourself and decide I guess. [125]. Anyways, most of the edit warring that happens at the anarchism articles is due to users who are now indefinitely blocked, or sockpuppets of those users before they are blocked themselves for being socks. A lot of outsiders don't realize this, so users like Aaron will occassionally be blocked. It's understandable, and it usually gets resolved without a problem. I personally think probation is inappropriate in his case, especially considering he was never even notified. The way I see it, the case for Aaron needs to be reopened. Some of the original supporting voters may change their minds after hearing Aaron's side of this. I'm not sure Tony if your post above is meant as a way of saying the case is closed and won't be reopened, but if so, that is not right. You shouldn't be able to decide whether Aaron still should be on probation since you (nor anyone else) can unilaterally put a user under probation. Aaron's part of the case needs to be re-voted on to maintain basic fairness. The Ungovernable Force 06:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just a clerk so I wouldn't be involved in the decision on whether to re-open. However as a clerk I rummaged around in the case and came up with what I thought might be relevant detail. --Tony Sidaway 06:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, just wanted to make sure. It sounded like you were turning it down without saying so explicitly. Thanks for the clarification. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 07:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom

Admins are discussing here whether they will be enforcing Remedy 7.3.1, "Irishpunktom and Dbiv are banned from editing Peter Tatchell for one year" with respect to Dbiv. Admin and ArbCom clerk Tony Sidaway has, in fact, said outright that he would "stop trying to enforce this remedy", saying that Ignore all rules applies here. [126] Is non-enforcement optional or dependent on the quality of the edits, or is this a bright-line ruling? --Calton | Talk 01:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's my personal opinion, made as a Wikipedia editor. My role as an arbitration committee clerk means that sometimes things I say may be misinterpreted, and I apologise for unintentionally misleading anybody into thinking that my opinion is worth more than anybody else's. I only meant (and I said as much) that I had decided that I myself would cease attempting to enforce the remedy. I object to no other administrator who enforces it and I will take no action to challenge enforcement (I also said as much). As far as I'm concerned this remedy is a fully enforceable arbitration ruling, equal to any other arbitration ruling in its legitimacy. --Tony Sidaway 02:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is no trouble, I really don't care either. Fred Bauder 17:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

Statement by Andries

1. Does not linking to purportedly unreliable websites also include the homepages of critics with their own articles of Sathya Sai Baba e.g. Robert Priddy (see [127]), Basava Premanand, M. Alan Kazlev (see here [128] one of the webpages on the website authored, owned, and maintaind by Kazlev, linked to in his Wikipedia article), Sanal Edamaruku, Babu Gogineni, the late Abraham Kovoor, and the late H._Narasimhaiah. SeeWikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/#Robert_Priddy for a description of this dispute.
2. Does not linking to unreliable website also include wikipedia user pages such as user:Andries See [129]
3. Do unreliable websites also include the websites created and maintained by user:SSS108 especially for Wikipedia. In certain cases such as this one [130] the webpages on this website are simply copies that SSS108 took from the webpages of exbaba.com [131]
4. Is it okay to use webpages with copies of reputable sources on purportedly unreliable websites as convenenience links in the references. See e.g. here [132]
5. User:SSS108 removed a lot of information from the article talk page [133] that I had moved from the article [134] to the talk page [135]. In spite of my request to do so he did not justify in specifics why this removal was either justified by WP:BLP or the arbcom decision regarding posting external links. I object to mass removals of information from the talk page that are not motivated in specific terms if and where it violates WP:BLP or the arbcom decision. SSS108 stated the intention to remove more of my future comments from the talk page [136] Is SSS108’s or my behaviour a violation of talk page etiquette?

Andries 13:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC) added one more clarification request 17:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by SSS108

Regarding Points 1-4:

I would like to point out that the Geocities site that Andries is now complaining about was created, with his consent and agreement, in mediation with BostonMA: Reference. In the past 6 months, Andries has never complained about the content (or ownership) on the Geocities site although the Geocities site is completely neutral, cannot be traced to either Pro/Anti Sathya Sai Baba Sites and whose content has never been disputed by Andries for the past 6 months.

Andries is now having a change of heart and is wishing to link references to his and other Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba sites in violation of a clearly stated ruling by ArbCom that forbids this: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba. It is also important to point out that since all these references come from reliable sources (newspapers, documentaries or magazines) they are not "owned" or copyright protected to Anti-Sai Sites. The material in question cannot be claimed by Andries as his own and was never originally published on Anti-Sai sites.

Andries entire argument is moot in light of the ArbCom ruling. Andries is unremittingly attempting to link to his Anti-Sai site so he can push his Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba agenda. Why is he so insistent that the links go to his personal, critical, partison and controversial website when there is a neutral one that does not push anyone's agenda? That is the question that is at the heart of this matter. To further illustrate this point, Andries feels that slanderous pages are entirely appropriate on Wikipedia. See Reference where Andries stated, "re-insert homepage of the subject in question robert priddy can slander on his own article whoever he likes". It is disturbing comments like these that prove that Andries has a keen agenda to push on Wikipedia.

Even today (Sept. 9th), Andries made a highly questionable edit where media articles (which were determined to violate WP:NOT) were moved from the Article to the Talk Page: Reference. This was discussed in arbitration (Reference), in which I stated that Andries was using the talk pages to promote his Anti-Sai agenda.

I have also agreed to hand the Geocities site over to a neutral 3rd party. If anyone is willing to take over this Geocities site and assume responsibility for its upkeep (and update it accordingly, as needed), I will gladly hand the site over. I stated this when the site was created.

Andries has been trying to change Wikipedia policy on the Wikipedia:Citing_sources (see history) page so that he can push links to Anti-Sai websites (including his own) on Wikipedia: Reference. I posted on the thread on September 7th: Reference. Andries conceded that this argument preceded the ArbCom ruling and was unrelated to the ArbCom case (Reference). What is strange about this is that despite his former comments, Andries was attempting to cite this very same argument (from the Wikipedia:Citing_sources page) that he was using to defend the inclusion of links to his Anti-Sai Sites: See FloNight's Thread. Also see Tony Sidaway's Thread.

Regarding Point 5: :See Thread on my talk page where I gave reasons for removing this information.

Finally, the policy might be different on pages that have not had an ArbCom ruling, however, it is my contention that since ArbCom made a ruling specific to the Sathya Sai Baba articles, the general policy must be interpreted in association with the ArbCom ruling. Thank you. SSS108 ^talk-email 14:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

I want to comment here on my dual role in this matter. My first response on this was that it seemed to be a matter for administrators to resolve, and I investigated as an administrator and warned Andries politely in my role as an administrator that in my view and that of other admins he was contravening the ruling in the arbitration case.

Andries has come back politely with what amount, in my view, to clear signals that he requires much closer direction on this matter. I suggested that clarification from the arbitrators might be a good way of resolving this matter, and his query here is the response. Andries has shown by his responses and actions that he is eager and willing to comply with the arbitration and in my role as a clerk I commend his queries to the Committee, While this is clearly a dispute that could have become very rancorous, it seems to me that Andries is doing his best to avoid that path and seek clarification. I also commend SSS108 for his civility in the course of expressing a difference of opinion in a forthright and honest manner.

I hope that this is not "crossing the streams". I hope it's clear that my views as an administrator and as a clerk are quite distinct. My regard for both participants here is very high. Their honesty and civility is impressive. --Tony Sidaway 02:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Archives

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)