Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FloNight (talk | contribs) at 21:31, 20 November 2008 (→Clerk notes: Six supports). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review (WP:RREV).
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Wikipediocracy-related conduct   21 October 2024 4/1/2
Marine 69-71 Motions 26 October 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.


Current requests

Edits by User:Jörg ÖA

Initiated by Linkswechsel (talk) at 05:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried


  • Attempts to speak with user (in chronological order): [13][14][15][16][17][18]
  • Attempts to initiate discussions with user: [19][20] and response from user [21]
  • Attempt to reach compromise agreement: [22] and response from user [23]

Statement by Linkswechsel

User:Jörg ÖA is apparently a critic of the Left Party, one of the major political parties in Germany.

He has repeatedly inserted lines at the top of the Left Party article (and related biographies of living persons), using words such as "extremist"[24][25][26], "totalitarian"[27], and "censorship"[28]. His basis for this is a single 2007 watchlist from the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV, a domestic intelligence division of the Interior Ministry), which includes the Left Party on it. The inclusion on the list is because of allegations pertaining to certain party members, but Jörg ÖA treats it as a blanket condemnation of the entire party. He has placed these statements at the top of the articles for maximum effect. In addition, he placed links to this watchlist on biographies of Left politicians[29][30], even if they are not named and/or accused in the document. Attempts to speak with him have either gone unanswered or replied with personal attacks--accusing other users of "trolling"[31] or "vandalism"[32][33], as well as insinuating that I support Nazism and Communism[34]. I attempted to compromise by including the BfV issue in a more neutral manner[35][36], but he quickly reinserted his version of the text[37] and was unwilling to discuss any compromise[38].

Given the uncivil nature of Jörg ÖA's activities, and since this affects multiple articles, I believe that arbitration is necessary. --Linkswechsel (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Party 2}

Clerk notes

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

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


David Gerard

Initiated by Moreschi

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • N/A: there is no other venue for requesting sanctions against an administrator.

Statement by Moreschi

As can be seen both here and, more relevantly, here, David Gerard recently made a completely dumb block of Giano, for reasons that I can only conceive of as malicious. Giano's "socking" was known to pretty much the world and his wife, the block had no basis in reality or policy, Gerard was the totally wrong person to be blocking anyway due to prior heavy involvement with Giano-related issues, and David knew the block would never stick - so why do it? I can only conclude because he wanted to piss Giano off and thought he could get away with it. This is trolling.

Please temporarily desysop for a month or something. We will not get away from these horrible blocks of Giano and other established users unless arbcom makes it very clear that blocking productive users for fatuous reasons is just not on. And a temp demop is the way to do that. Moreschi (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • While personally I would deal with this by open motion here, as the evidence is extraordinarily clear-cut, if it is felt that a full case must be opened I recommend putting a time limit of a week on it, or something similar. Moreschi (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lol wut? Everybody knew CDB was Giano, including, I believe, arbcom. Why the bleep was checkuser even thought about here? And Giano is a "bad-hand account"? Huh? Plus, joke nominations, which this clearly was, happen every year at arbcom election time. No one was going to vote for CDB anyway. We don't block people for making such nominations. We just have a laugh, or at the most, remove the nomination.
    • David, you have clearly lost touch with reality. Wachet auf. Moreschi (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie

While I completely agree with Moreschi, and the fact that David Gerard avoided actively discussing the block, instead relying on an empty "Take it to arbcom if you disagree with it" (possibly trying to insinuate that the block had ArbCom authority), I hope that ArbCom will review this case (preferably privately to avoid further drama, and the usual attempts to make it about Giano rather then other people's actions) and determine if removing the bit from David Gerard (temporarily or permanently) would benefit the encyclopedia. I'll have it noted that David Gerard has stated that he knew these accounts were linked in 2006 and did nothing at the time, after talking the case over with Bishonen. SirFozzie (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a thank you goes out to User:Phil Sandifer below for making my point for me. SirFozzie (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by How do you turn this on

David Gerard should have his admin rights stripped for this very poor block, clearly made to bait and bully Giano. Though I'm unfamiliar with the history of the two, others are saying Gerard has had previous interaction, and thus makes the block a COI. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. This was a block out of pure malice. Moreschi suggests a month. I suggest permanent removal, and removal of CheckUser.

Other issues, such as use of sockpuppets could be looked at by the committee. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Morven

Why was this block done now, not months earlier? Why was Bishonen's joke account also running for ArbCom not blocked? What about the fact David Gerard has apparently had disputes with Giano in the past? – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to TenOfAllTrades

Scarian's outburst is a lot worse than Giano's comments. Not only that, he was in a position of trust, adminship. The two are not comparable. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel

I am of the opinion that, if ArbCom feel this needs a remedy of some sort, it should be afforded the full process. Any less, while abbreviating things, will only create more drama. Desysopping David (or any other remedy) isn't clear-cut here, unlike when we had unresponsive administrators etc. and it was purely a matter of principle. This is further compounded by the fact that the Committee will most likely be asked by some to consider his checkuser access. Daniel (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's been moved up to "Current requests" from the motions section. I'll return to my hiding hole now :) Daniel (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Tom harrison

Giano blocked and promptly unblocked, news at 11. Please just let it go. Tom Harrison Talk 23:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Phil Sandifer

I encourage the arbcom to accept this case. I cannot see any fault in David's actions here - to my knowledge "commonly known" is not a criterion in WP:SOCK. However, this adds to the laundry list of instances in which it is obvious that no sanctions can ever be made to stick on Giano regardless of their relationship to policy - even a block that is well-founded in existing sockpuppet policy is, apparently, grounds for swift reversal.

Given that the community has consistently failed to show any capability for regulating the conduct of this user, it falls to the arbcom to do so. I am prepared, should the case be accepted, to document the lengthy history of disruption and incivility on the part of Giano.

But I encourage the arbcom to accept this and deal with this situation for once and for all - either to put an unambiguous sanction on Giano that cannot be overturned by the circle of protection he has managed to gather, or to pass a finding noting that despite his incivility, the arbcom washes their hands of it and accepts that the community has consented to put him above the law such that his special status can be enshrined in policy and we can be done with this idiotic drama surrounding good faith efforts to deal with an uncivil user who serially violates policy.

As for the comments of others, particularly SirFozzie, this entire situation is ludicrous. Giano used a sockpuppet account to run for arbcom while using a different account to ask questions of candidates. That the sockpuppet account was apparently known to some does not alter the fact that it was a violation of policy. And given that Giano was declared at the start to be a part of this case, I would think that asking that his conduct be considered would be uncontroversial. That said, if it is controversial, I am happy to file a new case. Arbitrators - please let me know if you would prefer to consider a general case on Giano's behavior separate from this one.

Statement by User:Black Kite

There are a number of issues here, quite apart from a block which appears to have been malicious. There is also the claim by Gerard that a number of other Checkusers ran this check, and - unless Gerard was acting on his own - presumably OK'd this block. Either way, some transparency would be useful here, which is why I urge the ArbCom to take this case.

  • I am also confused by David Gerard's response below, because on Giano's talkpage he claims that he knew the two accounts were related in 2006 [39].

Statement by Alex Bakharev (talk)

  • Everybody can make a strange block once in a while but those bad block on Giano, one of our best contributors, have to be stopped. They are very disruptive. Maybe a temporal desysopping is a way to handle this drama

Statement by RMHED

Well I for one was aware that the CdB account was really Giano, and I can't believe for one moment that David Gerard wasn't also. So why iniate a pointless CU? To confirm what he already knew of course, and thus to enable him to make a 'legitimate' indef block of the CdB account and a 24 hr block of Giano. In what way was the alternate account abusive? No reasons appear to have been given in this regard. It is hard not to conclude that these blocks carried a fair degree of personal animosity against Giano. David Gerards unwillingness to discuss the situation and his dismissive tone of any criticism aren't really befitting of an administrator.
I urge the Committee to accept this case with the sole purpose of examaning David Gerard's fitness to be an administrator.

Statement by David Gerard

  • Moreschi's reasoning for an assumption of malice is completely unclear.
  • Sir Fozzie's claim that I refused to discuss it is also false. What I didn't do was immediately reverse it on dissent; that's a different thing, however.

The block was made after several checkusers saw the accounts matching and couldn't quite believe Giano would pull something this stupid. Several of us checked and saw it was a clear match.

As Phil Sandifer points out: pretending to be two different people in one venue (an arbcom election) is precisely what sockpuppeting actually is. There's no way this is an innocent use of a second account or just playing. Arbcom elections aren't the venue for that sort of thing.

If arbcom disputes this, I would be interested in the reasoning as to why this isn't a case of playing a bad-hand account (Giano II, with a long running history of gross personal attacks and abuse) and a good-hand account (Catherine de Burgh, with no such history) in the same venue - David Gerard (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite unsubstantiated assertions above (and if you think you can substantiate them, please do), I have nothing against Giano II personally, despite his habit of personal attacks against all and sundry (including me, and these are still ongoing) in the past two years. I think he's a great writer and contributor, and I'm simultaneously appalled at his ongoing habit of making personal attacks against all manner of people. I think he could long ago have benefited from an ArbCom restriction to article space only, and an arbitrator-enforced personal attack parole. To this I would now add a firm restriction to a single account. It's unfortunate such excellence in article-writing appears to be accompanied by a stunted and vitriolic attitude - David Gerard (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please respond to my suggestion in the arbitrator comments section below. (Posting in this section just to make sure that David Gerard sees this.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr.Z-man

"unless arbcom makes it very clear that blocking productive users for fatuous reasons is just not on"

So if this goes through, and at some point, someone blocks me for a reason determined by the community to be bad, I can just point to this case and have them speedy-desysopped? Or am I correct in thinking that "productive users" is just code for "Giano"? That was my suspicion when desysopping was first raised as an option (in the first post to AN!), later comments seems to have confirmed it. Blocking an established contributor whose name isn't Giano for a bad reason -> Some public humiliation on AN, maybe an RFC. Blocking Giano for a bad reason -> Insta-desysop by ArbCom. Mr.Z-man 23:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by William M. Connolley

I agree with PS, except for the second sentence of the second para. Arbcomm needs to gird up its collective loins and finally deal with the Giano situation. Also, the assertion that "everyone" knew this was a sock account is clearly nonsense. Unless I'm no-one. Oh, wait... William M. Connolley (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WilyD

While I would otherwise agree with MrZ-man's assertion that an ass-backwards block without a demonstrated history of bad behaviour is not sufficient for an Arbitration, the appearance of abuse of checkuser tools is an entirely more serious matter that must be examine, whatever the truth of it is. WilyD 23:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sticky Parkin

I have mentioned this on G's talk page and on the noticeboard but will expand here. It wasn't common knowledge to me, most normal users who don't know the dramatis personae on wiki I imagine, and several others I know too. So I could have decided to vote for Giano/CdB, as may others, and I would have been misled into doing so. Giano made it clear he was not going to run this year due to an Arb/jimbo possible veto if he were to get in. I presumed he was telling the truth when he said that and didn't have another account going on. Sorry if this seems gormless, funny or naive to the rest of you in the loop but I doubt I was the only one (not that I mind horribly, but it is a bit deceptive to run for arbcom and not make who you are/your other account clear in your statement etc. Boring I know!:) This said, although David G. might have it in for Giano, what he did had some sense behind it, as someone had claimed they weren't going to run for Arbcom, then did using another account, thus deceiving some people (at least me!) I didn't vote for one person's RfA because they didn't make clear their old account, which I thought was cheeky. This was the same- if I'd known, I might have been less likely to vote for CdB, but as I didn't know I was considering voting for "her". The Bishonen/bishzilla case is not the same as everyone does know the accounts are the same I presume- but I at least, and at least one other person at least I think, didn't know. There is sort of a point in blocking if someone was deceiving people, or even just 'trolling' in the lightest sense of the word. Another User- User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back sometimes makes socks for a laugh and they get blocked sometimes I think. To be fair to DG, I don't think his block was outside acceptable admin actions, though bound to be mocked due to Giano's popularity. I'm saying this just to stand up for DG (who I don't know) as I don't think his action was that abnormal. But this doesn't mean I don't like Giano.:)To clarify- my point iis that this isn't worth an arbcom as DG might have done something unpopular, but nothing against the rules. Sticky Parkin 23:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Giano- most voters at arbcom elections might have had no reason to have visited your talk page to have seen any mention of the connection made several months ago so they might well have voted without knowing this- as you can see several people who will be voters did not know. Sticky Parkin 01:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Flonight etc- it might be an obvious joke candidacy but it would have got some votes it might not otherwise have got if linked to G., from those who didn't know it. People do vote for the joke or less serious candidates sometimes, and no-one likes to not be in the know, even if they're voting for a joke candidacy, they still deserve to know what they're voting for. Anyway, this is all sort of technicalities.:) Sticky Parkin 02:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As to contributions, look at for instance the articles User:Mattisse has made [40], and I think I can think of several similar editors. Their last 200 edits are not similar to Giano's (looking upto the time at which I write), which are not entirely unusual for him. They are glossy but about some pretty rooms or something, and all done in his user space for several months until their launch, not main encyclopedia space- when he isn't expending hundreds of edits rowing. People need to look what he's actually doing, not at the myth or what they remember him as doing. I looked round enough stately homes in my youth to be bored by them so maybe I'm a pleb:) Now I'll look like a chav lol, not that mine are wonderful of course but you know what I mean, I just mean saying he's a content contributor, in opposition to admins who disagree with him, at least judged on what he or they are doing over recent months/years, is not really fair on them. Sticky Parkin 18:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TenOfAllTrades

I note that User:Bishzilla identifies herself as a Bishonen alternate account in the first line at the top of her user page. I don't see any evidence that User:Catherine de Burgh was ever so clearly and unambiguously self-identified. Per Sticky Parkin, I've been on Wikipedia for just shy of four years now (and an admin for most of that time) and I didn't know about the Catherine/Giano link.

Can we please have a statement about Giano's conduct from ArbCom? Per Phil, we need either a remedy that sticks, or a decision that the ArbCom no longer regulates user conduct. Worth noting is that Jimbo actually took a stand against over-the-top abusive incivility the other day when he temporarily desysopped User:Scarian. Does the ArbCom have any intention of enforcing WP:CIV, or is it just Jimbo who can do it from now on? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by user:angusmclellan

Gerard stated that he knew the accounts were linked in 2006. Were any checks run today? Why were they run? Who ran them? The block is a matter of judgement, poor in my view, but certainly defensible. But checkuser access needs to remain utterly beyond doubt and above reproach. In this respect Morven's response entirely misses the point. There is work here for the committee in its checkuser ombudsman function. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NYB's comments re checkuser put the matter to rest for me. That leaves nothing for the committee to do here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by user:Tex

Reading the above, it appears some people want to take this horrible block on Giano and turn it into a case against Giano. That's utterly ridiculous. Phil and TenofAllTrades appear to want to make it only about Giano and his "incivility". Where exactly was Giano "incivil" here? It appears to me that Gerard ran a checkuser for no reason whatsoever and made two bad blocks. It sounds like a job for the ombudsman, not the arbcom. If this is accepted, it's just going to turn into a case where the arbs can finally "get rid of the Giano problem". This is not what arbcom is for.

Statement by user:Giano

I'm afraid this is all rather silly, you see many on the Arbcom and many checkusers have known for months if not years. To my certain knowledge:

  • Flo knew
  • Brad knew
  • Gerard knew
  • Lar knew
  • Alison knew
  • 100s of Admins knew
  • 100s of editors knew

I expect this is yet another attempt to "get me", but it's quite the most stupid one yet. If the Arbcom and the checkusers don't talk to one another that is not my problem. Oh and if someone searches through my talk page diffs they will find me admitting to her months ago. This was nothing but a fishing trip and it seems multiple checkusers have been caught with their fingers in the till. As me for me not running I think I said that for the first time today on WR, because Brad was asking me about it only yesterday, so no-one certainly knew I was not runing when Lady C launched herself, besides which how could she possibly have identified herself - do you think I would trust anyone here with my name and address? Giano (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We all have a right to our privacy. Gerard, this strange and sinister tool of the Arbcom, has broken and invaded my privacy, I have no idea what he has discovered, but I know where I edit from, he has no right to that infomation. For these Checkusers to say they thought Lady Catherine was Greg Kohs is laughable. I don't beleive it, Wikipedia's editors won't beleive it and the fact don't bear out - so whose privacy do we let him invade next? The fact he has not been instantly fired suggests he was acting as the tool of his superiors. I hope that is not the case. Giano (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved observer Nwwaew

Giano says that "this is all rather silly". Do I see anyone laughing? I'm frankly disgusted that Giano has been allowed to get away with what he has. Look at his statement. All I see is borderline personal attacks on the Wikipedia community, as well as denial that any of this is his fault.

I'm also frankly disgusted at the reaction to David Gerard. Where the hell did WP:AGF go? He's a long-standing constructive admin on here.

I urge ArbComm to accept a case to look at all editors involved in this in general, but most importantly, to look at Giano's behavior. If that is tolerated, does that mean I can go trolling as well? Or is Giano a special exemption to the rules?

Comment by Bishonen: it's not the block, it's the checkuser

(I'm slightly involved in the sense that David mentioned me in his block reason. I wish I'd been more aware of users' right to privacy on the 2006 occasion that he alludes to.) I'm not worried about this block; if I got worked up about every bad block of Giano, I'd be in a state of permanent hysteria. But I am concerned about the CheckUsering. There doesn't seem to be a good reason for it; certainly nothing like the kind of reason that CheckUsers rightly demand on the WP:RFCU page and on IRC (on the occasions I've asked on IRC). I posted a question about it on Giano's page, below David's block message: On what ground were the Giano account and the Catherine de Burgh account CheckUsered? But since David told Fozzie to take it to ArbCom, and since it's been years (quite literally) since he replied to any question of mine on his page, I won't take the trouble to repeat my question there. Could somebody please tell me if ArbCom can and will deal with it? (Mackensen seems to think they will, or might.[41]) The CheckUser issue seems to me a far more important question than yet another overturned block (yawn). Is Giano going to have to appeal to the Ombudsman Commission? It seems more complicated, somehow. ArbCom surely has the information to manage such a question simply and swiftly. Please feel free to post right below this, arbs, in case you have something to tell me. Bishonen | talk 02:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
PS, OMG, I see several people suggesting that we have here yet another wonderful opportunity to arbitrate Giano's conduct in general. And here I thought I was joking when I allowed Bishzilla to say she'd save a lot of time by recusing in all arbitrations involving Giano, as 90% of arbitrations do involve Giano! I humbly submit it's time for the committee to focus. On something else. Surely the reams of typing about Giano's ever-loving "conduct" are getting to be a bit of a waste of time? Bishonen | talk 02:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Question & Comment by Ncmvocalist

Eugh, we're sick of this drama. There is a clear division in the community when it comes to the now-unblocked user and that division grows after each and every incident (or often, ridiculous arbitration request for every reversed block).

Precisely where was it revealed that Catherine was GianoII's alternate account - the so-called "well-known" fact? His/her user page? Maybe talk page? Subuser page maybe? I certainly wasn't aware. Several editors and admins who have commented either here or at admin noticeboard also weren't aware. I know of several editors and administrators who haven't commented who are in the same category, and I don't think I'd have trouble in asking them to note that, if it becomes a necessity.

Personally, I'm in full agreement with Morven based on what's been said here so far. Additionally, to be explicit, David Gerard's tools should not be removed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Deacon

You're already subject to an arbitration case, but that doesn't entitle you to use any venue to engage in general incivility and personal attacks ("Giano's enemies, as DG clearly is, seem to be consistently so stupid"). It's grossly unacceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to JayHenry

Hardly; these ridiculous requests for arbitration are going to occur regardless of what the Committee says. No one was surprised because it's become so predictable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Cla68

Why didn't you open a user conduct RFC at the time? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by DGG

I was not planning to comment here, but I see that Giano, above, on this very arb case, is continuing to simultaneous say that every one knows he and CdB are the same, and also to maintain the fiction that he and CdB are separate users "how could she possibly have identified herself - do you think I would trust anyone here with my name and address". I came to WP long after matters with Giano had started, and to avoid getting confused from coming in midway in the story, have filtered out discussions of his troubles. Thus, although I could see CdB was a silly nomination, I did not immediately know it was him. Neither did other people here who are willing to admit our ignorance of even the most prominent sockpuppets. He is playing games with us; it continues to amuse him. It seems to amuse some people here. It didn't amuse Gerard, and good for him that he did something about it. G & his alter egos should be restricted to one account for everything they do, and restricted to article and article talk space forever. Seems obvious to me, though I don't think it will to arb com. DGG (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Deacon of Pndapetzim

Giano's enemies, as DG clearly is, seem to be consistently so stupid that they themselves are the greatest evidence supporting Giano's critique of wikipedia. And actions like this are among the greatest illustrations. David Gerrard's block was both pathetic and dumb, and was so obviously so that this is perhaps sufficient punishment of itself [perhaps]. Moreschi says DG knew it would never stick. Well, you'd think, wouldn't you ... but the idea that this would piss off Giano seems strange too. I think Giano is used to getting impotent blocks by now. Hmm ... I do wonder [???] what was going on in his head here. The excuse to block was of course lameness incarnate. Obviously a dead female aristocrat mocking feminism and campaigning for arbcom is someone's sock. I had one encounter with Catherine de Burgh, today, and even I was confident it was Giano. Even if this wasn't as obvious as Bishzilla, it is obvious that Giano was not interested in making any attempt to conceal this. You want to create a sock to evade wiki's rules, you try to hide it, not make it blatantly transparent. But of course David already knew all about Catherine de Burgh since 2006 [making it hard to understand the CU stuff], he didn't just suspect it, and blocked him an age after finding out without even opening a discussion. The "bad hand" nonsense looks like bad faith, perhaps vindictiveness, and if so ... well ... such qualities shouldn't be tolerated in admins [let alone users as senior as DG], though I know they normally are when the user is powerful enough. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ncmvocalist Ncmvocalist, no offense, but I think you'll need to better distinguish who does and does not get impressed or influenced by sanctimonious claptrap [and also about current arbcom cases apparently]. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jay Henry

You know, rather than act exasperated every time this happens the ArbCom could clarify that we do not block first and ask questions later--if there's no emergency then talk about it. Oh wait, that sounds an awful lot like attempting to solve a problem. Instead let's reject the case, shall we? Same time, same place, next week? --JayHenry (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cla68

Just a quick reminder that this isn't the first problematic block by Gerard. Gerard blocked Piperdown as a "sockpuppet/meatpuppet for overstock.com" [42] without providing evidence. As it turns out, Gerard was completey, absolutely mistaken, both in the accusation and for blocking for that reason, but did not reverse the block nor apologize for it. Others in the community, thankfully, finally reversed it on their own. Cla68 (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Gladys J Cortez

A quick question for Flo, since I don't think I understand her "reject" rationale properly: If everyone/largely everyone/everyone involved knew this was a joke account belonging to Giano, how is this NOT a bad block; and if it's a bad block, with history apparently involved, why reject? You yourself say that David knew about the parody acct and who it belonged to. The reason this was brought to ArbCom wasn't "Giano had a joke account", nor to my knowledge was the main issue "somebody ran a bad checkuser". As I understand the reason for this request, it was "David G blocked a user for having a joke account even though he KNEW it was a joke, not a malicious sock." The rationale you're giving to reject would be a valid reason for rejecting on the first or second premise; on the third premise, though, it seems like a better reason to ACCEPT the case. Just my thoughts, anyway. GJC 05:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thatcher

Welcome to Total Drama Island. I was contacted by another checkuser who was concerned that Catherine de Burgh might be a sockpuppet of a particular banned user. The name was familiar and I checked the checkuser log, to find that I had previously checked the account in June, due to concerns about Troubles-related editing. I had no memory of the June check or its results so apparently I discovered nothing interesting at that time. I re-ran the check and found that Catherine de Burgh was a sockpuppet of Giano. I attempted to contact "Catherine" privately [43] but "she" flipped me off [44]. I also sent an email to the original checkuser, Jimbo, Newyorkbrad and David Gerard, asking if this was an open secret and saying that I wanted to "tread gently." During the afternoon, a third checkuser, who saw my check in the log, emailed to say that he'd "always assumed this was Giano and never actually bothered to check." Unfortunately Newyorkbrad did not (and has not still) responded to the email.

If, after reviewing my comments, the Arbitrators stand by their opinions that the check was "below best practice" and "not good" then I will happily resign, although I may want to initiate a discussion about "best practice" in this context. Thatcher 05:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my breaching the page format, but that (your or anyone's resignation) is certainly not something I've suggested or even hinted at). I think the blocks were unnecessary, but that's a very different question. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me clarify something. After reviewing the entire checkuser log for the June check, it appears that some edits have been oversighted. I believe that an account or IP made a personal attack that included personal information that has been oversighted. I do not recall for sure, but I think "Catherine" either came to the defense of the attacked party, or was herself attacked, in a manner that made me suspicious. (Recall that the Troubles articles have been plagued by sockpuppets on all sides.) I checked the attacking account, and I also checked Catherine. Catherine's most recent edits were too stale to return any result, which is why I did not discover in June that she was a sock of Giano. But the check was still recorded in the log. (That's one of the problems with the checkuser log; it shows what data was requested but not what data was returned. Similarly, if I ran a check on User:Grawp today, it would return no result, since the edits of that account are much too old; but the log would still show "Thatcher got IPs for Grawp".) Thatcher 15:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sarcasticidealist

Reading Thatcher's explanation above, this appears to have been a good faith checkuser conducted within policy. While Catherine's identity obviously wasn't a secret, by not having a big honking notice on the page identifying it as Giano, Giano was running the risk of having it checkusered in the event that there was evidence of abusive sockpuppetry. This doesn't change the fact that David Gerard was aware Catherine's identity well before the checkuser results came in, but apparently never bothered (during those two years) to actually look at the account's contributions, which would establish pretty clearly that it wasn't a good hand/bad hand situation. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Will Beback

I just blocked a user for creating a hoax article and using sock puppets. Now there's this case. Catherine de Burgh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created an article that, if not a hoax, is very dubious and sourced only to a blog.[45] Looking at the image which illustrates the article, Image:Anti-flirt.jpg, I see a fraudulent license (it's a 1925 image and the tag is "Author died more than 100 years ago public domain images"). Creating bad content is not a joke. Reviewing the sock's "contributions" further, I see many cases where "she" went through seemingly random articles in order to link common terms, which is discouraged, and to link dates, which is also discouraged.

I asked Giano politely to mark this account as his and he responded rudely.[46] If people run sock accounts they shouldn't be surprised if they draw the attention of checkusers, nor should they be shocked when those socks are blocked.

We routinely delete user pages used to play games or to engage in social behavior unrelated to building the encyclopedia. This account seems comparable to those. Editors are free to create as many MySpace accounts as they like. The only accounts we should create on Wikipedia are those intended to help build the encyclopedia. This sock was ultimately disruptive and it was correctly blocked.

Lastly, I'm very disappointed that an editor would run an undisclosed sock for a position of trust, and that those who were aware it didn't do anything about it. Giano should either disclose the names of his other socks or stop using them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to NE2:

This is the source for the article as it was written: Shorpy.com. Since when are blogs adequate sources for articles? Furthermore, I can't believe that an editor of Giano's experience would really think that this individual was sufficiently notable for an article. As for the photo, we generally assume that something is copyrighted unless we have evidence to the contrary, so far as I'm aware. When questioned about it seriously on the talk page the sock didn't give a straight answer but instead talked in a funny voice and acted offended. Taken as a package we have a poorly sourced article about a non-notable person illustrated by a photograph with a misleading license, and the creating editor is an apparent sock of an undisclosed editor who refuses to give straight answers to legitimate questions. As I said at the top, I found a another user acting in a similar manner today and I blocked him. This isn't the kind of behavior that we should encourage or even tolerate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Will Beback by NE2

The article is certainly not a hoax; search Google News and Google Books for "anti-flirt". As for the image, the name of {{PD-old}} is rather deceptive. It probably should have been {{PD-because}}, but it does appear to be public domain; if the LoC is not aware of any copyright restrictions, I believe we accept that. --NE2 06:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Achromatic

I'm surprised by this, or I wish I was. All manner of reasons have been claimed for blocking Giano here. Because he was "incivil". Because he "wasn't taking a serious process seriously. ArbCom elections are no places for jokes". For "being a bad hand". "For not admitting it was him". "Because sockpuppets do so at their own risk". None of which holds any real merit. David Gerard claims in one place that he knew about the account link two years ago, and yet now blocked on CU evidence. Giano responds on Catherine's behalf, mixing the use of "I" and "she" in a way that is straightforward enough that I think it almost disingenuous for someone to claim "I have no idea and he won't admit it". There have been many joke applications for Arbitration elections. There have been instances of vandalism (Ceiling Cat, anyone?) passed off as "a joke, and not worthy of a serious response". For David Gerard to punitively block Catherine's account and Giano's account for misuse of sockpuppets is a flagrant attempt to selectively enforce at a convenient time a dubious decision. Nothing he has said since that point has served to demonstrate the validity of the block, and it is saddening to see several people come here to say "Ignore David Gerard. We need to deal with Giano's misbehavior", not for the first time. I think much more needs to be considered in terms of the whys of this poor decision. Achromatic (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for Thatcher from Black Kite

Thatcher, you don't appear to have done anything wrong here at all, which begs the questions

  • Why was the block of CdB left to David Gerard, who has previously conflicted with Giano?
  • Why was it decided to block Giano as well, knowing the drama that would ensue,

If you had blocked CdB, with a simple "CdB is blocked - joke's over" to Giano, this would clearly have been sufficient, drama levels would've been zero, and this entire time-wasting exercise would never have happened.

It was not (and still is not) clear to me that Lady C should be blocked or unblocked. Bishzilla was allowed to run for Arbcom, but Bishzilla is an openly acknowledged sock. One response I considered was to post to the candidate's page a request that Lady C either publicly identify her owner or withdraw her candidacy. I sent an email seeking consultation and second opinions to Jimbo, to Newyorkbrad (who was referenced in one of Lady C's most recent posts) and to David G. (who had previously checkusered the Lady C. account and whom I thought might have relevant information). After several messages were exchanged, David decided to block both Lady C and Giano. You'll have to ask him for his reasons. Thatcher 15:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Avraham

There are two issues here: one is the checkuser and the other is the block. Speaking only about the checkuser run, let me clarify that I was the checkuser who approached Thatcher, not David Gerard. I have forwarded an entire chronology of events to NewYorkBrad last night, but to ensure Thatcher's good name is cleared and for the community's and Giano's sake, a brief synopsis of events is as follows. I had no idea (or recollection) that CdB was Giano, but had a concern due to CdB's edits that it may have been a sockpuppet of a community-banned editor. I did not want to run a CU based solely on my own suspicions, but looking at the CU log, I saw that months ago, a check was run on CdB by Thatcher, and so approached Thatcher prior to any new CU being run with my concern, as is accepted protocol between CU's. Thatcher must have forgotten the results too, and subsequently, ran a new CU. When the results came back that it was Giano, I then ran my own checks to confirm. Neither Thatcher nor I took any on-wiki action. Rather, he asked CdB for confirmation (as demonstrated above) and e-mailed myself, NYB, Jimbo, and DG as he stated above, and those e-mails are in the possession of NYB as well, as he was copied on all of them, and can be forwarded to an Ombudsman should it be required. The checkusers were run in good faith, initiated by people who never knew, or perhaps forgot, that Giano was CdB, and who were interested in preventing disruption to the project. Nobody, including Giano, was singled out for "special treatment" and had Giano had a link on CdB's or had it been as obvious as Bishzilla/Bishonen, I do not think any of this unnecessary drama would ever have occurred. -- Avi (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by George William Herbert

Newyorkbrad's comment that perhaps the situation would be better if David Gerard voluntarily agreed not to do any admin response to Giano, or a motion should be passed to make that official, seems remarkably familiar to me from my not too distant past.

I bear no grudge for the events that saw me before Arbcom re my block of him some months ago. However, I would like to post a suggestion. If a sequence of well intentioned neutral administrators find themselves applying good intentioned but ultimately highly controverisial administrator actions / responses to a particular user, perhaps the problem isn't the administrators.

Giano is obviously problematic, or else he would not have been blocked by so many different admins over time. His fears of persecution are not well founded - looking at his block log you see a who's who of experienced admins, many of whom don't agree with each other on much of anything much less any pattern of dislike towards Giano. I can't think of any other user with a block log that long who hasn't been community banned by now.

He's also widely acknowledged to be a strong contributor.

Neither of these are particularly news to anyone.

I propose an alternative - with the intent to lower drama. Stop accepting Giano block related cases for consideration, unless a clear consensus on ( ANI, AN, somewhere appropriate ) after some appropriate period of time (24 hrs?) that a particular case was in bad faith or violating admin policy, and not merely controverisal.

Allow admins to make judgement calls (and the occasional mistake) without fear of umpteen million words of drama following.

If Giano doesn't want to be blocked, he can conform better to community standards. If Giano's blocks are sufficiently controversial normal unblock process (ANI review, other admins discretion, discussion on talk pages) can deal with them. The community is ill served by allowing this level of drama time after time after time. This level of drama is arguably not worth it - if we're to come to this time after time, I would put forth the argument that we should community ban Giano to end it. I think that just banning unnecessary drama is more appropriate.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by LessHeard vanU

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC#All parties cautioned - Epic fail by David Gerard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom

There does not seem to be evidence of any "disruptive" sock behavior on the part of CdB (Lady) in the recent past that would rise to level requiring a block, especially compared to other behavior that the ArbCom has not supported sanctioning. Therefore the the blocks placed by David Gerard seem clearly to fall in the realm of personal vendetta. However there are other methods of reviewing David Gerard's behavior/actions that probably should have been attempted before this request before ArbCom. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Friday

Something useful could be done here: Arbcom could choose to look into the behavior of David Gerard. As an admin and a checkuser, he's expected to behave reasonably. This is not the first time he's failed spectacularly to do that. He's simply too kooky to be allowed to continue. A couple quick and easy remedies would fix this problem. Friday (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Bearian

I've long suspected that CdB was the sock of somebody, but it all seemed so harmless, funny, and not in violation of any policy. I do not think either account should have been blocked. It was senseless. I also think that Checkuser should not have been used for this purpose. But having been done, we should just move on and take it as a lesson learned. Bearian (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Rockpocket

CdB made a number of edits that are not an acceptable us of a WP:SOCK. Using both accounts in an exchange with the same editor who was not in on the joke (and using the sock to insult that editor, too) [47], article space vandalism (and a WP:BLP violation, or does being among our "best" content editors give you license to insert "jokes" into articles now too?) [48]. S/he also used the account to make subtle jibes at other editor Giano was in dispute with (I will not provide links, because s/he used one editor's real name). I urge the Arbs to remind Giano that, should one wish to operate a sock-puppet and then fall foul of WP:SOCK, then one shouldn't complain when that account is check-usered. Rockpocket 01:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to The Red Pen of Doom: I'm aware that that block was not a direct result of those edits. My point is that if one chooses to use a sock in a manner that is not consistent with policy, then one should not be outraged about being the subject of a check-user, irrespective of when that occurs down the line. My point is only about why a checkuser was not unreasonable (in contrast to others, who are suggesting it was personally motivated). I offer no opinion on whether the consequent administrative action was appropriate, not least because I am not in possession of the information that the checkuser revealed. Rockpocket 02:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:DrKiernan on Checkusers

I was reluctant to comment here, and will be reluctant to comment further, but...

As Bishonen says, I think the block here is fairly irrelevant but the checkuser is concerning.

I once had an account connected with me checkusered. I did not mind the checkuser, as it was a public one, notified at the appropriate noticeboard and dealt with appropriately in public. I was fully cognisant of the checkuser, and knew it would show nothing.

However, I then received a private e-mail notifying me that the checkuser results had been shared with another or other checkusers. This concerned me.

I do not think it is appropriate for private information to be spread in this fashion, and I am dismayed by the ArbCom's willingness to shrug off the matter, or pass it to the Ombudsperson Committee. The problem with the Ombudsperson Committee is that making a complaint there necessarily means sharing the same private information, which one sought to protect in the first place, with another three people, if not more.

Checkusers need to be stricter with themselves. Apparently, it is common practice for checkusers to conduct checks on their own initiative, and share results with other checkusers. These practices should stop. DrKiernan (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Hans Adler

I am shocked that the committee show no willingness to accept this case. This is a unique chance to make it clear, once and for all, that Wikipedia values all contributors equally (especially those with special needs such as a complete lack of judgement or writing abilities). Elitism is against the core principles of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit; consequently those who abuse their abilities by writing substantially more than their fair share of featured articles must be made to understand that they are suffered, not supported, by the community.

Some of these overusers of article space resources even go to great lengths to motivate themselves (and others of similar inclinations) by employing humour. This may be acceptable in some open source or open content projects, but not in Wikipedia. (A common misconception, resulting from the fact that not all infractions can be persecuted, is that humour is allowed within reason.) We are writing a serious encyclopedia, not some nerdy operating system. Moreover, anyone who uses humour in Wikipedia (and especially in project space) exhibits a severe lack of respect for those of their fellow editors who have no sense for it.

Checkusering as a means of intimidation is already a standard response to POV pushing and random article defacements. Prolific writing of content that cannot be improved is a much more dangerous, systemic, problem because it will eventually lead to the death of this project. It needs to be treated in the same way. I am concerned that Arbcom, unlike our checkusers, are not seeing the big picture. I urge the committee to accept the case and set an example. If the committee is afraid of banning Giano, I respectfully ask that at the very least he be de-adminned and his IRC and checkuser rights withdrawn. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to finish it. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jossi

Per Ncmvocalist and others, I did not know the relation between these accounts either. I was puzzled by the CdB "nomination", and wondering what was that all about. I would argue that Giano may be living and acting under the mistaking assumption that 1,000's of editors and admins are interested in him and his activities, which may be amusing to him but certainly not to others, including me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cube lurker

I am seriously disturbed by the fact that so many admins, checkusers and arbcom's didn't know that CdB was Giano and I, a nobody did. I question the cluefullness exhibited here.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Cube. While I'm an extra helping of nobody, who doesn't see socks in every corner, I totally always assumed CdB was Giano, or one of his close associates (i.e., the same sense of humour). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:NVO

Administrators do make mistakes, sometimes very obvious ones - what can be more obvious than a copycat block on a Giano wrapped in "Go talk to Arbcom" rhetorics. No radical actions requred, a 48-month block is sufficient. NVO (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved User:Andrwsc

What's disruptive in this case is the excessive drama. On that count, I see both parties at fault. Giano II simply had to have known that simultaneously running a "joke" sockpuppet account for Arbcom election, while at the same time attacking other candidates on their statement pages, was going to be discovered and going to be considered disruptive. It smells to me like a plan crafted at election time precisely to make a point. Also, David Gerard simply had to have known that blocking Giano II for any amount of time was going to be challenged and criticized by a wide section of the community, regardless of the policy merits or not of that block. What was the point he was trying to make? Both editors need some sanctions for substantially increasing the drama meter. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Protonk (talk)

At the risk of turning this into a straw poll, I had no idea that Giano ran an alternate account. I'm not sure who was supposed to "know" this, but I question the claim that the link was common knowledge. I don't have a comment on the assertion that past actions by David intimated that he knew about the alternate account. Recommend rejecting this and moving on. A terminal solution to the problem isn't likely to come from arbcom. Protonk (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

All details seem to have now been completed. AGK 17:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Reject. Using more than one account in the same venue is textbook sockpuppetry and is explicitly forbidden. If the relationship between the two accounts had been explicitly out in the open there might be an excuse (although even then, it's not a good thing to do something that can so confuse). However, in this case, that a certain "in crowd" knew they were the same person is nowhere near good enough. The block was fully deserved and frankly should have been longer, IMO. This is not acceptable behavior. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not when one of the accounts is obvious joke account. There was no way that this account can be viewed as an attempt to deceive or avoid scrutiny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FloNight (talk • contribs)
      • It is a clear joke account. I'd be surprised if any of the 100s of usual suspects who like to watch Giano's moves and comment on them and compile diffs on his various postings, do not watchlist his user talk and religious look at every comment made about it. Even if they only looked occasionally, the dialogue that CdB engages in makes it pretty obvious who it is. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 04:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. David has known about this account since 2006. Other check users and admins knew this account belonged to Giano or knew it was a joke account belonging to an established user. From the accounts contributions there is no way the account can be described as a "good hand account". It was an obvious parody. The account has been listed as a possible candidate for weeks. If there was a concern about the account being confusing for voters in the election then it needed to be addressed by "talking" to Giano. Labeling the account either to Giano or a parody account would have solved the problem. A 24 hour block served no purpose but drama. Running a check on an account where the user is already known (if that is what happened?) is below best practice and not one that I would do, but is not against Wikipedia English standards since there is no policy against checks to confirm the owner of unlinked alternative accounts. In my opinion there was no violation in policy since no "non-public information was disclosed. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was offline tonight, just got home and quickly skimmed this, and will have to catch up on details in the morning. My preliminary non-binding impression is ... well, is better left unspoken until I've finished reading, but it's not good. I can confirm that I have known for months about Giano's alternate account and was under the impression this was common knowledge. It certainly was always readily apparent that Lady Catherine is a sock/alt account of someone's. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Thatcher, please see my comment above, and I'll answer your e-mail after it's light out.) Geez ... I'm kind of compulsive about quickly checking in on-wiki and my e-mail even when I'm pretty busy, but last night I was at an event at the courthouse, where blackberries/phones have to be left with security, and it turns out that by being offline for half a day I've precipitated the maelstrom du jour. I blame myself, and in penance and to avoid further problems have cancelled all of my meat-world activities away from my desk until further notice. (Well no, okay, I haven't done that, but I really am sorry I couldn't have headed this off by being in the right place at the right time: if this had come up the day before, for example, I would have caught it early.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I confirm the chronology of events as given by Thatcher and Avi. I find no evidence of any misuse of checkuser privileges; as Avi and Thatcher say they didn't know who Lady Catherine really was, I certainly believe them. I do find that the blocks were unnecessary and their announcement handled poorly, but this does not warrant the drama of an arbitration case regarding this matter. I have considered offering a motion directing that David Gerard take no further administrator actions toward Giano II. I ask that David Gerard make such a motion unnecessary by voluntarily agreeing to this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Response to Georgewilliamherbert) For a number of reasons, I find the present situation involving Giano to be substantially distinguishable from most of the prior cases or requests involving him. I think the differences are readily apparent, though I can expound on them if needed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. People who use sock accounts for "legitimate" reasons (note that I have generally a dim view of these so called legitimate uses of socks, I think they're used far too often and the policy needs reform) without telling everyone, or at the very least, without formally informing the Committee, do so at their own risk. If one wants to do anything even remotely questionable with an alternative account (and running for ArbCom, adminship, whatever is certainly outside the permissible uses of such accounts) one needs to be completely transparent. The obvious example of such transparency here is Bishonen/Bishzilla. --bainer (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Can the clerks please remove this request from this page now. Why are we still wasting time on this? Why did anyone waste time on this in the first place? The only motion I can think of right now is "Everyone is invited to get lost". But just in case there's actually a serious issue here regarding privacy violations, the Ombudsman Commission is the way to go. But I see no serious issue. Just lots of time wasting. --Deskana (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Wikipediocracy-related conduct   21 October 2024 4/1/2
Marine 69-71 Motions 26 October 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.



Request to review User:Jack Merridew's ban

Jack Merridew has asked the Arbitration Committee to review and lift his ban. (arbcom clarification, User:Jack Merridew, SSP case, RFCU case, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive136#Community sanction or ban for Jack Merridew, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive142#Jack Merridew).

On Oct 24, 2008 Jack Merridew started a dialog with the the Arbitration Committee and some Wikipedia English administrators (name of email: thread Mentorship, take 2?) about returning to Wikipedia English with editing restrictions and a mentor. During the discussion, Merridew was counseled about the exceptions for his return, in particular the absolute requirement that he will stay completely away from White Cat.
On October 28, 2008, White Cat was notified by email that the Arbitration Committee was reviewing Jack Merridew's ban. Since then, White Cat has given his thoughts about the potential unblock in several talk page threads, ([52], [53], [54] and in an IRC chat (In the ArbCom list email thread, White Cat- Jack Merridew (Davenbelle) situation)


Question from Risker

I note Condition #8, in particular "Should Jack Merridew violate the restrictions imposed upon him in this decision, he may be blocked for one year by any uninvolved administrator" (emphasis mine). Am I correct in interpreting that any deviation from the remainder of the editing condition will result in a one-year block? Risker (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Note - refers to Condition #8 in Motion #1, as it was initially proposed by FloNight.[reply]

Comment for FT2: I note that you have changed the section I quoted above; could you please include that in your comment? Risker (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LessHeard vanU

I am concerned at the timing of the proposed return of Jack Merridew - with whom I have previously had some convivial interactions - given that White Cat is a candidate on the 2008 ArbCom elections. I would seek reassurance that the conditions of the return of Jack Merridew includes a constraint upon him not participating in the aforementioned Election in any capacity; his voting for and advocating for candidates other than White Cat possibly being construed as acting against that party. I would point out that if Jack Merridew were not permitted to regain their editing privileges then they would not be permitted to participate in the election, and that under the circumstances being prevented in doing so while editing under restrictions is not as prohibitive as might at first appear. I regard this as a necessary extension of the restriction that Jack Merridew should not interact with White Cat, as proposed by FloNight. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Vandenberg

IMO, Jack Merridew has earned a "final" chance. It is not just the work he has done on other projects, but also the manner in which he has communicated with others about his prior behaviour. He has been open and honest, and a hard worker to boot. *fingers crossed*

It should be made clear that this is his final chance, and that he will not be enjoying the benefit of the doubt, so it is on his shoulders to ensure that there is no even the slightest appearance of relapse. It looks like FT2 is going to proposed something along these lines.

In regards to the Arbcom elections, raised by LessHeard vanU above, the discussion about this motion started prior to the elections, and I am pretty sure that it also predates any indication from White Cat that he was going to run. I think it is safe to say there is no possible chance that it was was a motivator in this case. It is a given that Jack Merridew would oppose White Cat if he could, and think it is sufficient "punishment" that he wont be able to that. Limiting him from participating entirely isnt something I would have even thought of, but now that you have raised it, it seems reasonable. It "cant hurt". As you say, if this motion doesnt pass, he wouldnt have been able to participate anyway, so he is no worse off if he is prohibited from participating in this years election. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by White Cat

I am of course less than thrilled at the thought that Davenbelle (aka Moby Dick aka Diyarbakir aka Jack Merridew) would return editing on this site. This isn't something I have any control on, I know that. I do not have to like it but I think I can live with it. All I want to do is not to deal with any more harassment. If arbcom can pass measures and enact mechanisms to insure that.

I will however say this. Moreschi is not an uninvolved third party on this matter. I would recommend arbcom to pick a mediator that does not have a past quarrel with me. I'd be EXTREMELY uncomfortable in asking Moreschi for help. I really do not want to be put in a situation any more uncomfortable than it already is. PLEASE!

Also in my view Jack Merridew should at least have three different mediators. If one mediator is unavailable (leaves the project, gets ill, gets hit by space debris, does a head-on with a planet and anything else equally unlikely) others would be there. This would also be in the best interest of Jack Merridew too me thinks.

-- Cat chi? 06:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

To Lar,
What do you mean I clashed with "a long list of people"? Please stop treating as if I am the disruptive party. I am sick and tired of facing accusations any time I bring up an issue concerning Davenbelle. Give me a freaking break!
We aren't exactly in a shortage. There are plenty of editors and admins out there who have not alienated themselves from me. Unfortunately Moreschi is not such a person. I do not believe what I am requesting is unreasonable. I am not trying to win a wiki-enemy and I mean no disrespect to Moreschi. I just do not wish to see him in the helm of this very fragile issue.
-- Cat chi? 21:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Also victims do not need "parole officers". And in actual legal systems if the parole officer has a conflict of interest, he or she is of course recused. I'd have thought Moreschi would recuse himself from such a task... -- Cat chi? 21:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
To FloNight:
You were having connection problems and seems like I only got a partial post from you. We can discuss this in greater detail if you are online now.
-- Cat chi? 22:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
To arbcom:
Can the case be called Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew? Shorter the better. No real reason for this though.
-- Cat chi? 06:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Lar

I am in favor of this. I have seen this user in action on other wikis and I think he truly is committed to making a successful return here, and truly understands what will be required to do so. Further, as a steward, I've reviewed the unification of accounts other than Jack Merridew (which have all be explicitly directly disclosed to me although they are public record) and if there are any issues (there are some accounts that are in use by other users) I will do my best to assist in resolving them.

Finally, if the ArbCom desires that more than one mentor be appointed I am willing to so serve (this matter has come up in private communication already). However, I have confidence in Moreschi. He and I have already communicated and I have offered him whatever assistance he may choose to ask for that is in my power to give. ++Lar: t/c 07:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Pixelface: Wow. I think you might want to refactor your words just a bit. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Tznkai: I think your analogy is a bit off... neither victims nor perpetrators get a veto over who the parole officers are, and I'm not sure it's a good precedent to establish that anyone (other than ArbCom) gets a veto over who the mentors are. Input? Sure. And ArbCom should weigh that input carefully. But in this particular case, the list of people WhiteCat has clashed with over the years is rather long. Are all of them to be disqualified? Is everyone who Jack Merridew clashed with also to be similarly disqualified? ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Tznkai: (I feel like we're having a dialog, maybe we need to thrash this out somewhere else) First, we are none of us perfect, and that includes both JM and WC. So perhaps it would be generally better if neither party had a veto over who could mentor and who could not. I'm with you in wanting to trust ArbCom to be sanguine about this matter. However, perhaps more than one mentor is a better approach here? I'm starting to really like that way of doing things. As for disenfranchising completely, that does seem a bit punitive to me, doesn't it? Either he's returned or he hasn't. ++Lar: t/c 23:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Casliber

I would also be happy to mediate in unbanned. I found Jack Merridew's behaviour infuriating at AfD, and I guess my views are more aligned with White Cat and other inclusionists. However, like some other deletionists, Jack has some very valid points on systemic bias and addressing it, is good with layout and has been contributing constructively on much-needed article content elsewhere. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Pixelface, KWW, White cat, A Nobody - all these editors make valid points, and if the consensus were to remain banned I would not oppose. I am merely pointing out that if Jack Merridew were unbanned, I would be happy to mentor as I have seen some good work. I concede that it is a long period of problematic behaviour, and like a Nobody, found the AfD participation troublesome and unhelpful. I think if White cat feels uncomfortable with Moreschi then a different person needs to be selected. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pixelface

Oh dear God no. You have got to be fucking kidding me. Wow. What a horribly bad idea. I can't believe any arbitrator is even considering this. Y'know, why don't you just really shit on White Cat *and* WP:HARASSMENT and make Jack Merridew an arbitrator while you're at it? Jack Merridew would be a great arbitrator — he's obviously good at manipulating you clowns. How can you people be so fucking stupid? Y'know, that may be too salty. Can I get a mentor pretty please? This isn't just about the constant stalking. This isn't just about the constant socking. This isn't just about the constant lying about the socking.

Please, come to your senses and look at this graph, this thread on Jimbo's talk page, this AN thread, this AN thread and also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop (I know it may be the first time for some of you). Search for "Jack Merridew" on the E&C2 workshop page and think about what you'd be doing. Pay special attention to this thread and keep in mind Jack Merridew's later admission of sockpuppetry. After I made a motion to add Jack Merridew as an involved party of E&C2, he responded with insults and by following me to AFDs. This isn't just about harassment of White Cat (although that really should be enough, don't you think?) This isn't just about the constant lying. If you unblock David aka D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5 aka Senang Hati aka Moby Dick aka Diyarbakir aka Davenbelle aka Note to Cool Cat aka Thomas Jerome Newton aka Jack Merridew, you might as well open E&C3 now (and proceed to sit on your thumbs for 3 months). Now let me tell you a story.

Once upon a time, a woman named Allison Sudradjat, AusAID's Minister Counsellor in Indonesia, who administered aid from Australia to Indonesia, boarded Garuda Indonesia Flight 200 in Jakarta and when it went to land on March 7, 2007 in Yogyakarta Indonesia at Adisucipto International Airport, it overran the end of the runway and crashed and burst into flames and she died, along with 20 other people. Two months after the crash, David (aka D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5 aka Senang Hati aka Moby Dick aka Diyarbakir aka Davenbelle aka Note to Cool Cat aka Thomas Jerome Newton aka Jack Merridew) from Bali (or a kampong near Bali), who started editing October 31 2004, who has in the past repaired the roof on the Senang Hati Foundation, and was perhaps momentarily bored of stalking White Cat at the time, wrote an article about her and it was deleted. In anger, instead of improving the article, he then sought to delete every article related to "pop culture" he could find (although I don't really see how that fits with David's problem with "Jimmy's other pocket"). Congratulations David! Now when anyone wants to learn about D&D, Wikia thanks you for the page views! For his all-around assholery, David received death threats and impersonators. I guess harassment begets harassment.

At one point, after he had gotten his lulz, Jack Merridew admitted to being Davenbelle and he was blocked indefinitely. In March 2008, David asked that the article about Allison Sudradjat be placed in his userspace and David finally decided to improve it. Casliber placed it in the mainspace and Pegasus deleted it under G5. Casliber took it to DRV in April 2008 and the article was re-created. Am I warm so far David? Or are you full under a bridge somewhere? After the Senang Hati Foundation and Allison Sudradjat articles were improved, perhaps David is less bitter now and trusts in the editing process on Wikipedia. However, why should anyone trust David after the unmitigated bullshit he has pulled? You do not trust people who have shown themselves to be untrustworthy over and over and over again. Fool Arbcom once, twice, three times...how many times does it take? Seriously? David sure isn't making the Senang Hati Foundation look any better. If I ever get in a plane crash in Indonesia and end up paralyzed, I'll be sure to go to the Senang Hati Foundation for my free wheelchair and complimentary stalker.

What are the risks of unblocking Jack Merridew? What are the benefits? Are there any? How could you even consider an unblock without a topic ban in fiction? If Jack Merridew is unblocked, that is a clear message by the arbitration committee that WP:HARASSMENT means fuck all, that users can do anything they want and always be forgiven, and that ArbCom is a joke — just in time for the 2008 elections. Yeah, unblock Jack Merridew right before the elections where White Cat is running. White Cat's the pig! Run White Cat run! --Pixelface (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tznkai

I did some minor clerking on this case before hand, but I have recused myself from further such edits, this is a personal opinion

I am not familiar with the gory details of this case but I take the following two things as fact:

  1. Jack Merridew has harassed White cat
  2. White cat has in good faith stated he would not be able to turn to Moreschi for help concerning this matter.

That there has been harassment is a serious problem, and needs to be dealt with the utmost of caution. That we see the ability of any editor to reform is noble, enacting this belief with caution would be most wise. Using a mentor-cum-watch dog is sensible, but it is certainly not sensible to use a mentor that the victim of harassment doesn't trust. This would be roughly equivlent to having a stalker's parole officer be the ex-spouse of the stalkee. I make no comment here on Moreschi's actual ability or lack thereof, I am simply pointing out without White cat trusting Moreschi, this rehabilitation is too dangerous and prone to spectacular failure. Unless the mentoring position is given to (a) individual(s) White cat can trust, these motions should not pass.--Tznkai (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Lar: In this case White cat is a wronged party and Jack Merridew has already breached community standards. He is essentially our equivalent of a felon, or at least an undesirable, so his concerns on who his mentor is are of very little weight compared to White cat. Do either of them get a veto? No. Is it a good idea to go against the victim's wishes? Also no. If we accept the possibility that harassment could reoccur, we accept that we need to actively monitor for it. The primary way to detect harassment is by the complaints of the victim, (even when every on wiki communication is logged, there is off wiki communication and information overload to worry about) and if White cat won't report, we've cut out the principle source of information.--Tznkai (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as precedent goes, I think its a good precedent to show that Arbcom is attentive to all the nuances of a situation.--Tznkai (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight, since there is a pending clarification on Everyking below that states flatly that Arbcom election voting and question are exceptions to the "No comments on" restriction, it would probably be a good idea to explicitly restrict Jack Merridew from voting or posing questions on White Cat's current and/or future elections.
On a related note, it may be worthwhile to deny Jack Merridew suffrage in this election entirely. The timing of this coming up shortly before an election unfortunate and the denial of suffrage is harsh, but I remind everyone that Jack Merridew was removed from the community for harassing another user and there are few more serious breaches of community standards. It is also clear that not all of the community is willing to forgive and forget just yet. Jack Merridew quite frankly, has to earn community trust again, something that will be considerably easier for all involved after the elections are over.--Tznkai (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Lar: (I think the dialogue is productive for the consumption of the public and the Arbitration Committee, but I'll be happy to also do it else where if you wish) Disenfranchising someone is very serious, and given the opportunity to decide it, I'm not sure if I would. I do think however, that the kind of harassment we're talking about here makes it an option worth considering. Suffrage is at the most basic level a way of saying someone is a fully fledged community member and conversely, being disenfranchised is a way for the community to set certain users apart. It is an ugly mark to bear, but Jack Merridew has earned it. Whether or not it is necessary, proper, or proportionate, I do not know, I will defer to those more familiar with the case than I.
As to the mentor issue, multiple mentors is of course the way to go, and if it is genuinely hard to find say, three upstanding community members able and willing to ride herd over Jack Merridew that White cat also is comfortable with, then sure, the Arbitration Committee should simply press forward. I do not however believe that there are significant practical problems of finding mentors who are acceptable.
What is left is the philosophical issue of whether or not Arbitration should allow any user to veto a mentoring structure, in substance or appearance. While the Arbitration Committee must make the best decision free of the whims of any one editor, it should likewise not make decisions simply to contradict the whims of any one editor, it would not only be counterproductive, but it would be petty as well.
We must finally remember that this "veto" from White cat is not a whim, demand, or opinion, but an involved editor showing us a genuine roadblock. Imagine for a moment that an outside editor, you or me, had pointed out that white cat had conflicts with Moreschi in the past, and that White cat would be unable to communicate effectively if he were harassed. The implications of the point raised are the same, and have practical consequences. Merely because it was White cat who brought it up doesnot make it any more or less true, and it is the point itself, not who brought it up, that should determine the course of action. In summary, if at all possible, lets find some more mentors that White cat is likely to trust and get this show on the road.--Tznkai (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by A Nobody

I support Jack Merridew being mentored by Casliber, but I also strongly recommend a ban from AfDs (way too much dishonest use of WP:JNN style of non-arguments) and instead advise that he focus on constructive article development for which I would be willing to colloborate. Just as I have avoided commenting in AfDs for some time now, anyone else should have no problem taking a step back as well as that was clearly one of Jack's conflict areas and for his own good, he would be wise to avoid areas where he is likely to run into conflicts. Actually, it's probably best that the more pollarizing and controversial figures step back from commenting in those discussions and focus on article development anyway as there are plenty of other non-controversial editors who can comment one way or the other. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moreschi

Clearly arbcom have not been reading their mail. No interaction or public commenting on White Cat was already explicitly agreed upon in the discussions which have been cced to arbcom-l. By all means vote on it formally, but we had already thought of this one. Otherwise, I will simply limit myself to pointing out that JM is a reasonable fellow, he can be kept away from White Cat, and that I am fully committed to doing so for his own benefit and for that of the encyclopedia. Yours, Moreschi (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kww

This is one of the only things where I wind up aligning with Pixelface and White Cat. Jack maintained a pattern of deceptive behaviour that lasted for years. It wasn't just passive deception, either: he actively lied to all of us. We always need good editors, but there is no need to welcome back the chronically deceitful.—Kww(talk) 03:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fram

He is doing good work on other Wikimedia projects? Good, he can continue to do so. But he has used all chances he deserved here, and more. I don't understand the bending over backwards to give some people an umpteenth chance. What message are we supposed to be giving here? Keep him banned from en.wikipedia ad infinitum, and don't waste anymore time on chronic trouble makers. Fram (talk) 09:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jack Merridew

Statement re Jack Merridew ban review motion

It is fully my intent to comply with the terms proposed. Since I was en:blocked, I have discussed the situation with a variety of experienced editors. I have made a great many much appreciated edits to projects other than en:wp; I have more edits elsewhere, than here. I have found the experience on the wider gamut of projects enlightening. I expect to keep a significant focus on the other projects.

I have no issue with FT2's amendments; it has been understood all through these discussions that further interaction is the issue here. I will leave it to others. As to the AC elections, no, my appeal is not motivated by any particular candidacy; as John says, it predates. I have no intention of making the given oppose; it would only serve to inflame. I do object to a complete disfranchisement. I've seen the current discussion re Everyking and what seems a similar situation and I do not feel that my otherwise participating in the process is inappropriate. If such an editing restriction is passed, I will abide by it. It would, however, be a poor precedent to set.

Please noted that;

remains in effect; this has been discussed in emails and should be a part of this.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

addendum;

re: Moreschi's role:

The term 'mediator' has leaked into the discussion; Moreschi's role is as a mentor to (and monitor of) me, not as a mediator between White Cat and myself. My discussions with Moreschi about this whole situation go back to March. I don't really know just what the dynamic between Moreschi and White Cat is; sure, I have seen bits of disagreement, but nothing much, really. I see the concern about this as moot; if White Cat has a concern down the road, there are 1,600+ admins he could consult, and there's the AC itself. FWIW, when he was placed under mentorship, his mentors included Tony Sidaway who was not a disinterested party.

re: FloNight's and FT2's discussion:

This seems to me to be an internal issue about the AC's role spilling out. It is certainly true that a large volume of counsel resides in my inbox; I've read things carefully and believe that I've gotten the appropriate take-away.

re Pixelface:

Oh, dear, good show. Thank you for reminding me that Elizabeth O’Neill warrants an article, too.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • After reading the suggestion for handling the case, I'm proposing a motion here (Clarifications and other requests section of the RFArb main page), and then announcing the proposed motion on AN. Since the precipitate for the last ban was socking in violation of an ArbCom sanction, ArbCom is the venue for a ban review. But in this instance, White Cat and the rest of the Community should have the opportunity to give the Committee feedback before the close of the Committee's vote. There is no need for privacy in this case and maximum transparency will serve the best interest of the Community in this situation.
  • The editing restricts were written based on the comments of the above administrators and have been previewed by ArbCom. The main purpose of the mentorship is monitoring Jack Merridew's account for any editing that will bring Merridew into contact with White Cat. No topic restrictions are spelled out in the restrictions but potential topics for problem editing have been identified and will be monitored. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • White Cat, I showed you the proposed motion before I posted it so that you could make suggestions. I wish that you would have let me know about your strong view about Moreschi during our chat so we could have addressed then. Adding several more mentors will be a good approach since it is something that was going to happen in an informal manner, anyway. As stated by others, this request for a ban review pre-dates White Cat's announced candidacy so I don't see that as a particular issue in this situation. Since Merridew can't make comment about White Cat, then voting would be out of the question. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • This is a banned user appeal where the Arbitration Committee are acting as route of last appeal. "JM" has a long and serious history of harassment, leading to a ban. The question is, can he decide to avoid White Cat now, and can conditions be crafted that ensure he is non-disruptive if given the chance. Those are fair questions; if the disruption has a fair chance of ending, then fine. If it were to be trialled and it were found that he cannot or would not, then the ban would (and should) be reinstated. Because harassment can be as simple as subtle digs, appearing on the same pages, and so on, the only condition that makes sense is complete avoidance of anything that might even slightly give that appearance - and the responsibility for ensuring that, to be JM's alone.

    Users are banned (by the community or Arbcom) usually for serious and persistent behavior issues. When a user has a long term ban (say 3-6 months or more), and behaves during it, then in most cases they may eventually be trialled back as part of the community. This is not a green light for disruption. Relapse risk must be considered, as must the higher barrier for continued trust in their reformation if there were evidence of relapse. Unbans in these conditions should contain some form of strong probation/mentoring if there is any risk of relapse, and a clear understanding that if the behavior resumes, then the ban may very easily be reinstated. This helps them (boundaries), their victims or users the conduct impacts on (deterrent), and the community/project (avoids issues of huge legalisms if they do begin to game or relapse). In brief, a user who is banned, is given good faith trust that they will behave from now on, but is also "on ice" for a long time after, may be more at risk of resumption, and must make sure that the old behaviors are history, as the "unban" hopes that they are. If they do not, then they must expect a reblock/reban may have a much lower "bar" (and unblocking a higher "bar") than it would for a fresh user without such history.

    Having discussed this internally, I am content to give JM a try at unban. However I also feel the unban conditions are grossly inadequate and do not protect White Cat from harassment, the community from resumption, or make it direct or simple enough that a relapse will mean the ban resumes. I therefore propose a further motion 2 which is in addition to motion 1, to remedy these. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to lift User:Jack Merridew's indefinite block and editing restrictions.

1) After reviewing User:Jack Merridew's ban at his request, the Arbitration Committee agrees to unblock his account with the following conditions:

  • 1. User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis and unifies that account. (already done)
  • 2. User:Jack Merridew discloses all prior socks. (already done).
  • 3. User:Jack Merridew agrees to not edit using open proxies.
  • 4. User:Jack Merridew agrees to completely avoid White Cat on Wikipedia English pages. No editing the same pages, no comments about White Cat by name or innuendo. No harassment of White Cat in other venues. This restriction will be interpreted in the broadest way with no allowance for any attempt to skirt the restriction in any manner.
  • 5. User:Jack Merridew agrees to avoid all disruptive editing.
  • 6. User:Jack Merridew agrees to a one year mentorship by Moreschi who will closely monitor for any contact with White Cat.
  • 7. It is specifically noted that this is not a "clear your name" unblock, but rather is done on the recommendation of Wikipedia English administrators that are knowledgeable about Jack Merridew's past disruptive editing and now support his return based on his good editing record on other Foundation wikis where White Cat and Jack Merridew both have accounts.
  • 8. Should Jack Merridew violate the restrictions imposed upon him in this decision, he may be blocked for one year by any uninvolved administrator, with any blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Log of blocks and bans
There are 11 active Arbitrators, so a majority is 6.

Support:

  1. After reviewing the comments of all involved users, I support lifting the ban with these strict editing restrictions. It is my sincere hope that Jack Merridew will honor his promise to stay away from White Cat and over time White Cat will be able to move past the his current understandable suspicions and worries be able to edit with less stress than he's had during the past few years. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If and only if 2 and (probably) 3 both pass. Otherwise strong oppose. We should only unban serious past harassment risks if administrator concerns about a relapse or breach of unban conditions will be taken very seriously. We should paint in the clearest black and white what the returning user must (not) do, to reduce the risk of ambiguity, gaming, or fault-shifting. If Jack Merridew is truly sincere, then these will present no problem to him and he will understand why they are required. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. --Deskana (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. This is a difficult issue but I find myself on balance agreeing with John Vandenberg that Jack Merridew has done enough to warrant a final chance. The conditions imposed here are among the most onerous the committee has ever imposed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. bainer (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I find this to be an extremely difficult call. I accept the assurances of those, including my fellow arbitrators, who report that Jack Merridew has done good work on other projects. I have also carefully reviewed the e-mails that this user has sent to the committee containing seemingly sincere assurances of good conduct going forward. However, it cannot be denied that the conduct in which Jack Merridew engaged was vicious and egregious. The record reflects that this user persisted in intentionally seeking to ruin the Wikipedia experience of a chosen victim over a period of years, for no particular reason other than that this fellow-user seemed easy to get a rise out of, plus had different views from JM on some policy/deletion issues. To this end, Jack Merridew engaged in a persistent and varied pattern of misconduct, including but not limited to incivility, trolling, "wikihounding" (f/k/a wikistalking), serial sockpuppetry, and making intentionally false statements to the Arbitration Committee. Not only did White Cat have to expend considerable time over the years in dealing with the mess and compiling evidence, but many administrators and arbitrators did as well; and White Cat's relations with other editors were damaged as they came to Jack Merridew's defense and accused White Cat of "paranoia" and the like for making allegations that turned out to be entirely justified and true. To his credit, Jack Merridew eventually, if most belatedly, confessed to his misconduct and stepped away from Wikipedia. As noted, his work elsewhere has earned him a final chance to return. We can accept nothing less than the complete avoidance of any conduct that could reasonably be perceived as harassment of White Cat or any other user, now and permanently. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) In the event that Jack Merridew is blocked by any administrator for a matter relating to breach of the above terms, any unblock is only to be decided by consent of this Committee, following any communal discussion in the usual place.

Support:

  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think that the community is perfectly capable of handling the unblock requests of someone that is blocked for harassment. But at the same time, it's perfectly acceptable for us to monitor this. --Deskana (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support; I hope this procedure never happens. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  1. First, I don't think that special enforcement is needed in this situation. It is significant to note that no admin unblocked the Jack Merridew account despite it not having a special enforcement clause as proposed. If you look through the block log, everyday admin block accounts for harassment and personal attacks. Admins are sensitive to these issues and deal with them regularly. The indefinite block on the Jack Merridew account was done during a Community discussion so there was some ambiguity about how this unblock request should be handled. During a discussion about how to handle this unblock request several ideas were suggested with all of them being reasonable ways to address it. I decided to make it a formal ArbCom ban review instead of having one of the involved admins open an unblock discussion at AN. I did this because I think that AE is a better venue for handling any question about enforcing the sanction or re-writing them if needed.

    Second, the Committee does not have a good track record for managing our cases load in a prompt manner. Until we address this problem, I'm not in favor of excluding alternative methods of handling a situation unless there is an absolute reason for doing it (such as an privacy issue or extraordinarily sensitive issues such as pedophilia related account blocks.)

    Third, alternative methods of dealing with unblock requests need to be addressed in a more systematic way with the Community. An ban review committee or another alternative way to comprehensively address the growing backlog of requests. Each of these cases deserve to have the attention of experienced impartial users who can craft editing restrictions that will be enforced. This is not something that the Committee should be doing on a regular basis because it is too time consuming.

    Fourth, if an individual administrator is using their tools outside of Community norms then it needs to be addressed with them in a direct way. If there is wide spread disagreement in the general Community and among admins about whether a block is appropriate, heavy handed enforcement is usually not the best approach for the Committee to use since the default should be less enforcement not more.

    Fifth, more comprehensive discussions about how to handle the different types of harassment, wikihounding, and bullying need to occur in appropriate venues on site.

    Last, the Committee needs to guard against putting in place provisions that might lead to more insular thinking. We need to make sure that our policies and practices do not make it more difficult for the Community to reverse a poorly written decision. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Whether or not it may have been needed in past reviews of this user,
    1. I do not know whether it will be needed in future ones. There are strong communal concerns (see above), and when it comes to a serious harassment case I want the ability to put a foot on the brake with no risk of gaming, "unblock pile-on" or the like, if there were a potential problem, until we have reviewed the incident.
    2. I emphatically don't accept "we're too busy" as an excuse for not giving the project an a harassed user the appropriate level of protection - if that is so then we'll just have to make time when it comes up, as we did for this appeal.
    3. If processes change then good; this is not a "usual case", it is a serious harassment case, and needs unusual safeguards in place.
    4. (4 onwards) The community has had consensus on poor unblocks before. Not one thing you've said explains how you will prevent gaming, politicizing or pile-ons of an unwise unblock if some admins decide to do this.
    To underline the issue, this is a user with a past history of serious harassment. We are trialling his reintroduction to the community. If he acts well (as we hope) then thsi is academic. If not, then this is very far from academic indeed, given the activity surrounding some other unblock AE cases. In brief - I disagree completely with your line of thinking. Rosy glasses and "it'll all work out anyway" are no substitute for being a bit blunt at times and allowing for the prevention of plausible unban problems. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You might be making some false assumptions about how the situation will play out. There is a danger that the Community left to there own devises would have decided to keep him blocked but the Committee might vote to reverse the block. After we unblock, there may be bad will between the Committee and users that feel that their concerns were not addressed. This just as likely to happen as the reverse. This error would not happen if the Community is permitted to do the initial review. I strongly prefer to keep to our ordinary role of assisting in settling disputes when the Community can not decide and some mechanism must be used to settle the situation. It is not our place to substitute our opinion for the Community's. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I largely agree with Flo. Further, as I have elsewhere indicated, if there is a culture problem in relation to unblocking, then that ought to be dealt with directly; trying to evade it indirectly by some preemptive flanking manoeuvre is unlikely to be productive. --bainer (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

  1. I have no strong view one way or the other on this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3) Condition 4 is amended to add the following explicit clarifications:

"User:Jack Merridew agrees to completely avoid White Cat on Wikipedia English pages. No editing the same pages, no comments about White Cat by name or innuendo. No harassment of White Cat in other venues. This restriction will be interpreted in the broadest way with no allowance for any attempt to skirt the restriction in any manner."

"In particular, if White Cat is editing a page, Jack Merridew is responsible for not editing that page, its closely related pages, or commencing editing on closely related topics elsewhere. If it is a well known page such as ANI, and both have genuinely valid reasons for editing it, Jack Merridew is responsible for ensuring he edits it only on a matter different from, and with timing or manner that has no connection to, any of White Cat's posts there."

Support:

  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Deskana (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  1. As discussed on the mailing list, the editor has been counseled about his editing restrictions in an much more extensive manner than this extra wording adds. In general extra wording on our cases leads to more confusion and adds to the potential for wiki-lawyering. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the point slips. A concern is expressed about conditions, your response is we don't need to set conditions because the editor has been "counselled". This (off-wiki) "counselling" carries minimal weight, and be far more open to disputing or "disagreeing about what lines were drawn", than a plain and direct statement of clarification, if there were a problem. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The comments by people looking at the editing restrictions prior to my posting them did not suggest that more details were needed. You were the only person out of 20+ people reading them that suggested and supported this change in wording. Traditionally Wikipedia has used less details in policy and sanctions because real life experience shows trying to nails down details with wordy passages causes more problems than it prevents. This point was made to you by another arbitrator to you during ArbCom's discussion of the proposal. So that was the reason that I did not change the wording that you suggested and instead suggested that you offer it as an alternative if you still thought it was needed. The role of the mentor(s) is to counsel the editor. There has been a large amount of discussion with Merridew in anticipation of this request. Past and ongoing counseling by a mentor is a necessary part of this situation. I have confidence that the mentor(s) will set good guidelines for him. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per vote on #2 above, per Flo's comments, and per my comments elsewhere. The present wording already indicates that the restriction is to be read as broadly as possible, and that is sufficient. --bainer (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

  1. Arguably redundant, arguably harmless. I have made my points to Jack Merridew above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek

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

White Cat has requested the Arbitration Committee review and lift Remedy 1 in the Coolcat, Davenbell, Steretek Case.

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

I would suggest that this motion isn't as straight forward as some seem to think it is. White Cat was originally banned from mediating disputes because he was mediating them where he had a clear point of view and often made the situation worse. Lifting a ban on mediation would allow White Cat to request to join the mediation committee and probably free reign to mediate any dispute he feels like for the mediation cabal. I suspect that a request to join the mediation committee would be unsuccessful, but I also suspect that participants of mediation cabal mediations would not be aware of the full facts and therefore accept him as the mediator. There's little stopping him from getting involved in the highly contentious disputes where his involvement could potentially be highly problematic. To put it bluntly, whilst White Cat does some extremely beneficial work on wikimedia projects, I believe he doesn't have the right demeanor to mediate any dispute here. I've seen him jump into too many disputes head first without looking at the overall picture or understanding what it's about. I'd thereofre suggest that the ban on White Cat mediating should stay in place indefinitely - there's plenty of other things he can do here. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by White Cat

To clarify the concerns of Ryan Postlethwaite and anyone else. I am uninterested in mediating at this point. When I tried to mediate in 2005, I was merely trying to help (no good deed goes unpunished). I was not trying to destroy wikipedia. I understand I was no good at mediating back then and I am unsure if I am any good at mediating right now. So I myself feel I am less than ready to mediate and wouldn't expect anyone else to feel otherwise. I hope people can agree with thus far.

Mediating is an art not everyone can do. Many users on Wikipedia should never mediate a dispute but this does not mean they should be banned from doing so. There are many users out there who should never touch Mediawiki:Common.css but that should not mean over 80% of the current admins should be sanctioned by arbcom from doing so.

Despite all that I am very tired of explaining the circumstances behind the ban even on issues when the ban itself does not apply. The circumstances behind it is quite complex and it gets more complicated over time. If anyone asks...

  • I would need to start explaining the entire dispute between me and Davenbelle (aka Moby Dick aka Jack Merridew) and that four year old harassment case. After all Davenbelle played a key role.
    • I would need to explain all remedies in the rfar case on 2005. (linked case)
    • I would need to explain all remedies in the rfar case on 2006. (Moby Dick case)
    • I would need to explain issues surrounding User:Diyarbakir in 2007 and the relevant checkuser case.
    • I would need to explain several issues surrounding User:Jack Merridew in 2008
    • The complexity of that case may get even more complicated over time.
  • I would need to explain other remedies concerning me on the 2005 case. (linked case)
  • I would need to do my best in explaining why this remedy will not ever expire (how it only expires if and only if I get an official MedCom seat and how that will not happened to a user who has an outstanding arbcom sanction on Mediation).

...and so on...

The arbcom ban was and still is a bit flawed too. It does not even clarify what kind of an action would be taken in the event of me mediating. I guess what I am trying to say is the arbcom remedy has a lot of room where I can game around. To date I have made no attempt to game around the remedy. Basically the remedy itself was never used. I am told it was in fact ancient history no one cared about until I brought it up.

So please give me a break.

-- Cat chi? 07:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Mediation Cabal Coordinators

Following discussion between the three coordinators of the Mediation Cabal we have come up with a simple plan if User:White_Cat wants to take a case at MEDCAB. For the first mediation he takes it will need to be co-mediated with an experienced mediator. In this instance "experienced mediator" will be someone chosen by the coordinators.

It cannot be categorically stated at this time who that will be, as it will depend on availability of mediators to mediate. Subsequent mediations at WP:MEDCAB will be watched as is done by the coordinators for new mediators. This is to ensure those who come to the Mediation Cabal for dispute resolution get the best possible mediation provided by volunteers.

Although MEDCAB is the normal venue for informal mediation, we have no jurisdiction to maintain informal mediation outside the cabal, eg. Third opinion. We will do what we can to assist. Any additional needs from us for mediation conducted outside MEDCAB, will need to be stated and discussed with us.

Signed by Mediation Cabal coordinators

Seddσn talk Editor Review
Xavexgoem (talk) Huzzah!
PhilKnight (talk) Huzzah! indeed

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • After discussion with White Cat and reviewing the past circumstances that lead to the sanction, I support lifting the sanction that restricts mediating. Based on my conversion with White Cat, he does not intend to immediately start involving himself with mediating disputes, but would like to be able to participate in discussions without the burden of explaining the reason for an active ArbCom sanction. Given the long length of time from the date of the sanction (Case Closed on 5 October 2005), I think it is a reasonable request and make the following motion to lift the sanction.—Preceding unsigned comment added by FloNight (talk • contribs) 17:06, November 15, 2008
    • Comment:Ryan, you misunderstand the current sanction. The ruling did not prevent him from requesting to join MedCom, it merely restricted informal mediation, so there is no change in status with the Mediation Committee. In general, I'm not comfortable leaving an indefinite ArbCom sanction hanging over the head of an user when lifting the sanction will cause no harm. I've discussed his interest in doing mediation, and he tells me that it is not something that he plans to do at this time. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have asked the Mediation Committee to submit their view on this, and will be guided by what they feel. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that nothing in that ruling prevents White Cat joining MedCom (in fact the sanction automatically ends if MedCom accept him); it does however prevent him mediating informally or as part of Medcab. I do not have a problem with open ended sanctions, provided they are subject to periodic review to see if the consensus is they are still needed. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to lift Coolcat, Davenbelle, Steretek Case Remedy 1.

1) Remedy 1 in the Coolcat, Davenbelle, Steretek Case is no longer in force.

There are 11 active Arbitrators, so a majority is 6.

Support:

  1. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. I'd like to clarify why I am supporting this. Mediation is a totally optional process, in all forms. By supporting the removal of this sanction, it is still possible for users who are unhappy with White Cat mediating their disputes to refuse to let him mediate their dispute, and seek another mediator, so it's not like we're forcing him on users who do not want him. It seems somewhat silly, at this stage, to refuse to let White Cat mediate if a group of users are happy with him doing so for their dispute. --Deskana (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill (prof) 20:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Deskana. --bainer (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. All of us find our niches at different roles within the project, and I don't think that mediating is the highest and best use of White Cat's particular skill-set, but I can understand his desire to get this years-old restriction off the books. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

  1. Pending response from the Mediation Committee. If the Mediation Committee had sufficient doubts as to not recommend this, then I would wish to think twice and discuss further, before saying otherwise. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request to vacate Matthew Hoffman case

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

I've also notified a couple people who were tangentally involved, they can decide if they wish to add their names. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

A few months ago, Newyorkbrad encouraged me to open a new request related to the core of this case, but the wounds were too raw, and I was unable to set out my evidence calmly at that time, so delayed.

I ask that we reopen the matter now.

In this case, the arbcom, while I was suffering from severe depression, illness, and on the verge of nervous breakdown from the monetary situation at the time - I was literally faced with being homeless - opened a case with no prior dispute resolution - I had never had so much as an RfC on me - and chose me to be a test case. In the end, combined with the other events, this forced me to drop out of university. I left Wikipedia over it, and it was only the active, constant encouragement of User:Newyorkbrad, User:Durova and a few others that brought me back after several months.

A sitting arbitrator launched a campaign of harrassment throughout the case pages, unchecked by the other arbitrators. Here are some samples. This all took place over a single bad block, made two months before the Arbcom case was opened.

In the initial lead in to the case, I had offered to let Charles Matthews take over the block, in e-mail, because there was no way that I could review it competently at that point in time. He said that was "not good enough", so I put it up on ANI.

Charles Matthews specifically says at one point that my refusal to simply to defer to his judgement is why he opened this case and pushed so hard for my desysopping:

Bear in mind, please, my approach. I intended to get Vanished user to correct this mistake, voluntarily, in such a way as could appear a personal realisation that something had not been right, something had been excessive. In such a way that no review process had been needed. An admin had reconsidered an indef block, had read the log - "gosh, that was too strong - a month is enough - didn't mean to put it that way". Unblocks, leaves a Talk page note to MH. Vanished user and I would have had a little secret. End of story: MH might have left the site, but the matter would have ended in no fanfare. Why do we have a test case? For precisely this reason: the indef block was made in such a way as to obstruct this entirely humane and non-accusatory private review, discussed as between colleagues. Now, I would treat the next bad block just the same way: private email; talk page note, "did you have a mail from me?", no topic mentioned; another private mail, saying more clearly waht the issue is; another private mail asking for attention to the matter; a further mail saying you really ought to give this some attention, and, no, we should talk before you take this to any forum. Tell me, please, whether I'm not acting in the interests of everyone? As opposed to - I start an AN/I thread saying "Vanished user blocked badly here, and here's my case", and we get an adversarial discussion. Charles Matthews 21:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[N.B. I used to edit under my real name. I will be censoring it wherever it appears, and would ask that if anyone mentions it that it be immediately deleted]

As he did not get my consent immediately (though I did unblock in the end), Charles Matthews then launched a campaign of harassment against me, using the power of the Arbitration committee to harass without fear of rebuttal. A complete read through of the case pages would be necessary to see this in full, so I'll just give a couple typical comments by Charles.


His harassment was not devoted to me, he also referred to other editors in the same over-the top terms:

To quote MastCell's response to the last:


However, Charles did not act alone, he was aided and abbetted by the other arbitrators, who actively defended his right to harrass me:


Furthermore, the arbitrators were clearly not interested in anything I had to say in my defense: The case opened on 17:40, 2 December 2007 [55]. Within 13 hours of this, and before I had had the chance to provide a single word of evidence in my defense, Uninvited Company set out proposed decisions saying my statements were not borne out by the facts, to sanction Chaser for not having unblocked Matthew Hoffman, and to suggest I be desysopped.

The problems with this case have been pointed out for several months, but the Arbcom have refeused to deal with it, even to simply remove the harrassing comments by Charles Matthews.


A proposal I made during the case that I be desysopped immediately, in exchange for the case stopping, because of the health and RL problems being severely aggravated by having this case going on as well, was rejected by the Arbcoim in favour of dragging it out, coninuing the case, then opening an RFC. However, in July, the personal details I had volunteered in an attempt to get them to agree to my proposal were thrown back in my face:

"Since the full circumstances of the de-sysopped user were disclosed to the AC in confidence, the only appropriate way for this user to regain the tools is to convince the AC – the only group of users with full knowledge of the situation – that the circumstances have changed such that we have confidence in his ability to handle adminship without problems." - Morven, on WP:RFAR, 23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC), seconded by Kirill.

The arbcom have very consciously put me in a situation where only a full discussion of my private problems will prevent them from using them to say that the community is unable to comment on my situation, and that they should have the sole right to discuss what should be done with me. I do not trust myself to comment on their behaviour regarding that matter. Suffice to say that when I DID make a disclosure of some of the health problems of that time, e-mails I received from them afterwards criticised me for not being detailed enough, because I had still wished to maintain some sense of privacy.


Other users have agreed that there are problems with this case:

Likewise Raymond arrit et al, Filll, and numerous others, see the last third of the Proposed decision talk page.

I do not care about getting my adminship back, and I accept that the block was incorrect. However, for my own mental health, I want to put this behind me. Likewise, the campaign of harassment is a blight on the arbcom, and I ask the arbcom to vacate it, in full. As it stands, this case remaining is a statement that, if you upset an Arbitrator, the Arbcom reserves the right to open a "test case" against you with mno proevious dispute resolution, and allow the arbitrator to harass you off the site.

Furthermore, the Arbcom's self-regulation is clearly not working. A basic principle needs to be put in place that all Arbcom decisions can be appealed by the community.

For obvious reasons, I will be crossposting to WP:AN, as I'm afraid that for some reason, I don't really trust the arbcom to judge this case fairly.

Thank you,

User:Shoemaker's Holiday, a.k.a. Vanished user. 14:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If the committee would like, I can send them copies of some of the e-mails I got from Charles, or provide other evidence.

Response to Tznkai:

I am requesting the entire case be declared a miscarriage of justice, or, in less inflammatory language, a mistake. That doesn't mean the actions would necessarily be reversed, e.g. me getting sysop back, but the pages should be blanked or something, and the decisions declared no longer part of Arbcom case law. At this point, any other action validates the three-month harassment I went through as part of this case. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Kirril: Just blank all the pages and leave a note saying it's been withdrawn. That, or something similar, would be sufficient. There's some very nasty stuff on there. I am sorry about this, and I had really hoped we could have dealt with this less publicly, but, well, now that it has been, it's hard to see any other path forwards... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sam

In this case, the findings of an arbcom-initiated RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vanished user were overturned to make a provisional desysop. I am not asking for adminship back and am fully aware that under the current RfA culture I probably never will. What I am asking is for the committee to accept that keeping up an attack piece, where a sitting arbitrator calls people "moral midgets", "dogs", and worse, and in which they harassed a user into a complete breakdown, and then in July unethically used confidential information about that user's health to continue their harassment is something they should not be doing.

What, precisely, in the current decision is so important that it must remain a year afterwards, and how does it justify the gross personal attacks, harassment, and other such things? The only thing that would change by this case being vacated, is that, if I triedd to run an RfA - which I would of course, have no chance of passing, the Arbcom, out of concern for my mental health, would not be able to villify and continue their harassment, by pretending to know anything about my current state of mental health, now that I am not facing being homeless and starving to death, because they knew what my mental health was like when both those things were true. I will urther add that the committee ignored all this information about my health during the case, but only gave any sign they had any knowledge of it at the point they used it to attack me.

The Arbcom has violated my privacy, been part of a harassment campaign against me, and, in July, insisted that I must make a public statement of my private medical details or they would continue holding power over me forever. Show some basic ethics, and stop trying to justify the harassment. The Arbcom has violated basic confidentiality by snidely revealing my health details in July in such a way to make things sound even worse, forcing me to reveal them. Please stop compounding your offenses and let's make a full break with the past, so we can all move on. The longer the Arbcom continues to defend their past bad actions, the more these actions begin to look less like mistakes, and more like intent. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, I am willing to have Newyorkbrad or FT2 as a mentor if that will help ease the committee's misgivings about making the basic ethical decision.


Second response to Sam

Very well, let's put it aside. You have evidently not looked at the remedies in the case, or it would have been clear that there is very, very little that would be overturned The only restriction that came out of that case was my desysop, (which would not change) and the right to regain the sysop after 6 months by appeal to the committee, with a probation to follow. FT2's commentary makes it clear that this was intended to protect me, in order to assure that I can get adminship back again.

The actual change in consequences is only to remove a proposal that was intended to make sure I could get Adminship back, which I do not want because it involves the Arbcom, and, after what has happened to me in regards to the Arbcom... Well, let's end this statement here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Per Kirril's Motion

I am willing to be bound by an informal agreement that I will consult the committee, and, perhaps even seek a mentor in order to prepare myself, should I wish to seek adminship. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To FT2

There had never been an RfC, and no real hint that I was doing anything wrong. Had either of those happened, I would probably have agreed to be much more careful. This is why Arbcom is meant to be the LAST resort in dispute resolution, not the first.

Let's review the finding of facts you mention


Finding of fact #3 justify his block of MatthewHoffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) include claims of harassment, POV pushing, extreme rudeness, and vandalism... None of these claims are borne out by a review of Hoffman's contributions.

He was clearly a POV-pusher. No reasonable person would deny that. The issue was that there was not sufficient time given to demonstrate a problematic pattern of POV pushing

As for the rest, as described here, I missed some context that mitigated his comments, but there was, at least, rudeness and attacks on others, justified by the context of a grand battle. I looked at diffs, and failed to consider the full context, and, in the typical manner this case was handled, all these mitigating factors were thrown out, even to the point of claiming he was not a POV pusher.

Finding of Fact #4

4) Vanished user's block of Matthew Hoffman for 72 hours, and the subsequent extension of the block to make it indefinite, were both outside blocking policy. The reasoning used to justify the blocks was fallacious, and Vanished user was involved in a content dispute with Hoffman. Further, the justification for the blocks in part is to encourage Hoffman to "cool down," which contravenes blocking policy.


This contains an utter untruth': I had not edited Irreducible complexity since January, as a search of the page history will show. In order to claim I was in a content dispute with him required claiming that having ever expressed any opinion o a subject, even before you became an admin, worked out to a content dispute. Secondly, only blocks with the sole purpose to make people cool down is outside policy. WP:BLOCK makes this very explicit:

Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption.

The emphasis is in the original. Indeed, the block policy also makes a clear distinction between content disputes and conflict of interest, and, while the latter is discouraged, is not actually forbidden.:

Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved.


FT2 asks for evidence that the decisions made about the Hoffman block were unreasonable. The committtee scraped the bottom of the barrel in order to justify a finding that I was in an active content dispute with Hoffman, mentioning a 7 month old edit to the page as proof. Carcharioth lays out a time scale here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Evidence#Content_dispute_at_Irreducible_complexity_and_Talk:Irreducible_complexity, I presume that, ignoring the actual dates, this is what the Arbcom used to justify its claims of a content dispute.

In short, the heart of the Arbcom decision with regard to the Hoffman matter - which FT2 declares unassailable - is based on a claimed direct violation of policy that never happened. This was pointed out at the time, [56], [57], etc. - FloNight even responded to a seperate point in the first post. The Arbcom pressed forwards with this anyway, enshrining a lie into a decision about me.

Finding of Fact 9.1 This finding implies there's a lot more that could be found, when, in fact, it is the result of an exhaustive review of every admin action I had made, thus making it almost certainly a complete list of what could possibly be found. Every single one of my blocks was reviewed on the evidence page of the Hoffman case, and Kirril can confirm whether he analysed all page protections, but given Finding of Fact #9 taking examples from my entire time as an admin, that's probably the case. If this is, in fact, all there was - and all evidence points to that - it is a much weaker finding than is implied by its similarities to similar findings of this type. Exhaustive or reasonably exhaustive searches should really be clearly labelled as such, anything else will be read as a representative set.

Furthermore, while at least some of the decisions were mistakes, there were mitigating factors:

  • Let's have a look at one of these in detail:

semi-protected Homeopathy a second time, citing IP "vandalism". A review of IP activity from Nov 27 - 30 2007 shows the edits related to POV differences and minor edits, not vandalism (WP:VAND refers)...

However, let's have a look at 25 November:

  • [58] - Vandalism by 202.168.239.186
  • [59] Vandalism by 75.153.9.52
  • [60] Vandalism by 90.203.64.154
  • [61] Further vandalism by 90.203.64.154
  • [62] Vandalism by 81.86.135.171

All of these are oobviously and unambiguously vandalism.

There might have been an arguement that the vandalism was not recent enough to justify semi-protection, however, the finding of fact says there was no vandalism, and claims that "The effect was to exclude IP editors with whom he disagreed as well as IP editors adding valid formatting edits." - implying that was my intent, when a review that covered just a two more days would have shown multi-IP vandalism and people having difficulty getting the reversion levels correct, reverting some of the vandalism, but not all. In a poorly-monitored subject, as Homeopathy was, this is problematic.


We could review the others. These had never appeared in evidence, and, by the time they appeared on the finding page, my health had crashed so far and, the arbcom having ignored all my previous comments, it did not seem that the arbcom cared what had to be said. Clearly, some more care would have prevented an appearance of conflict of interest, however, I was literally the only admin watching many of these pages, and most administrators had been scared off of all action on those pages, due to the poor editing environments there. Conflict of interest might have been an issue, but remember that the Arbcom case was the first procedural discussion of conflict of interest related to me, had any other dispute resolution occurred, I would have very likely accepted the problem and stopped doing the behaviours in question. The arbcom stated, upon taking the case, that the lack of any prior dispute resolution related to me would be taken into consideration.

I believe all the actions are defensible - not that they were correct, but that they were understandable mistakes, given the poor guidance I had, and that, as an inexperienced admin, I was working in one of the most contentious and poorest-monitored sections of Wikipedia. Had the arbcom cared to ask, I would have attempted to give my reasoning.

Here is what the community thought about these findings in the RfC that arbcom arranged to run, then ignored. Uninvited Company - I'm going to simplify this thread a bit, but I believe my summary is accurate - later claimed that the defense of me consisted solely of Scientific-point-of-view proponents and was thus ignored in favour of unnamed and unnumbered people who e-mailed the Arbcom in order to attack me. (Who clearly lacked a point of view?) [63]

On blanking I was told this would be done in February. This is far too little, far too late, and does not even deal with the errors of fact in the findings of fact mentioned above. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Flonight's proposal This looks fine. I might prefer it a brief statement saying the new statement replaced the previous content and decisions as well, but I think that I can bend a little bit to meet the Arbcom in the middle. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On thinking about this, the "no longer active" is so ambiguous that it could be read as meaning anything. If we're going to make a decision on this, it probably needs to be one that won't simply cause more confusion. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by involved party Jehochman

This case was handled badly. I think it would be a very good to erase it completely, on grounds of procedural unfairness. As there is no request to restore adminship, I see that the only action required is for ArbCom to acknowledge this open secret. Jehochman Talk 14:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thebainer, the remedy sought is to have the case vacated. The person in question is not asking for their admin tools back. Given the severe incivility contained in that case (moral pygmy, meddling hypocrite), and the very poor treatment by the Committee of the person making the request (RFAR with no prior DR, insufficient time allowed to present defenses), I think the request is reasonable. By failing to correct these problems when the request comes before you, you all assume responsibility for these events, even if you were not on the Committee at the time they occurred. Jehochman Talk 14:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be best for the Committee to pass a motion stating: 1/ personal abuse directed at named parties is denounced, 2/ you recognize that handling of the case was poor, and the Committee will endeavor to do better. Blanking the case would also be a good idea, because it is a poor example. The result can stand because nobody is disputing the outcome. I think these actions, which might appear symbolic, would have the effect of stopping further reference to the case. I for one am very tired of hearing about it. Jehochman Talk 17:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Blacketer, allowing the person in question to go back to RFA is hardly a concession. Their chances of passing RFA are dim to none. If they want tools back, the easiest way is via the Committee. Perhaps the case can be replaced with a statement that the user gave up the tools under a cloud and can get them back via RFA or appeal to the Committee. Jehochman Talk 14:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Important note to FT2

This case started with the posting of a remedy, before the accused had time to fully respond. Then it was suspended to run an RFC that generally opposed what the Committee was doing, selective enforcement or making one individual into an example to deter others. Then the Committee proceeded to disregard the opinions expressed in the RFC. A variety of us have asked for personal attacks within the case to be denounced or refactored. Thus far, these requests have been ignored. I am asking for two very specific things: 1/ the Committee blanks all the pages. 2/ the Committee makes a public statement recognizing the poor treatment of those involved. Public insults or abuse require a public retraction. Three wrongs don't make a right. The fact that the block was bad does not excuse Committee members to personally abuse those involved, nor does it excuse the Committee as a whole from culpability for conducting a kangaroo court. Cheers, Jehochman Talk 16:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved party Barberio

The manner in which this case was accepted is at best inappropriate opening of a case without allowing it to go through normal channels of having a block overturned. At worst, it appears to be an attempt to game the system by a sitting arbitration member pushing for a speedy resolution in his favour without giving a chance for rebuttal or defence.

I'm also unsettled by the use of 'secret reasons' for the desysop and block on re-admitance. Nor does the remedy sit well with the committee's actions towards more 'establishment figure' administrators who have had similar 'isolated bad decisions'.

In my eyes, the case wasn't taken on correctly, and not enough time was given for a defence. So this case was not legitimate, and none of it's findings or remedies should be active. It should be erased and apologised for.--Barberio (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sam Blacketer

With all due respect, the Arbitration process is a quasi-legal process, and claiming it isn't makes you appear to deny the reality of how your own committee works, much in the same way people claim there is no bureaucracy in Wikipedia. This is not unusual, quasi-legal processes exist in many associations, such as 'courts' that rule on FIA motor sports rule infractions. You need to recognise that this is a quasi-legal process, and act appropriately.

So since it is a quasi-legal process, you need to make sure your actions don't prejudice someone's case, you need to be as clear and open as you can be, and you need to apply suitable fairness.

You are explicitly not the fire-fighting team tasked with making quick emergency actions. You are supposed to act deliberatively, and urgent injunctions should be injunctions not rushed rulings. If you do not know the difference between an injunction and a ruling then you probably shouldn't be ruling on cases.

It is well within your power to make a temporary injunctions, and then investigate a case deliberatively. Failure to do so puts the legitimacy of the rulings at risk. --Barberio (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it is my opinion that the current ArbCom claim they do not set precedent, while acting like the do. This appears to be a misunderstanding of what the word precedent means... If you have used the same 'principles' from one case, to another, to another, that is use of precedent. This is standard practice by the ArbCom.

Again, denying you use precedents when you clearly do signals a misunderstanding of your own role.

Combined with the growing attempts to create policy, and hang 'resolutions' such as Motion of clarification in the Tobias Conradi case up as binding rulings, is troubling. --Barberio (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Durova

This request was opened overnight without my knowledge, and I read it on my first cup of coffee. In the interests of avoiding another arbitration, I urge the Committee to consider this motion. In addition to other objections, I have reason to believe the case was initiated upon misleading representations. DurovaCharge! 15:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where a user is being disruptive...the key issue is the disruption... Sam, Shoemaker's Holiday was an administrator in good standing until this out of process case opened against him. He is now an administrator in good standing at Wikimedia Commons. He has been instrumental to getting Wikipedia's featured sound program off the ground, is doing stellar work for the new 'song of the day' main page section on Wikisource, and is in good standing in all other WMF projects where he participates. There has never been any formal dispute resolution action against him, except related to this case. Shoemaker's Holiday has contributed over five dozen featured content items across multiple projects. What more must a man do to demonstrate he is not disruptive, once a bad arbitration case labels him as such?
The case was opened based upon a single month-old block which he had long since put up for noticeboard review, while he was offering to submit it for a second review. He answered all other relevant concerns to the satisfaction of community consensus, during the RFC for which the arbitration was suspended. Yet the arbitrators never substantially changed the proposed decision that had been posted in the first twelve hours of the case, before he had any chance to defend himself. Voting proceeded despite his requests for time to study for university final exams, and the time it took away hurt his grades. I fail to see what purpose is served by retaining this case, other than as a showcase example for critics of ArbCom to demonstrate the Committee's inability to correct its errors or rein in its members, when they level personal attacks. DurovaCharge! 01:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill, I agree that Wikipedia arbitration does not observe the precedents of case law. So far as I know, no prior case has been vacated because there has never been so much cause to do so as here. DurovaCharge! 04:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amending: Orangemarlin is a precedent, although an unusual one. DurovaCharge! 01:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To FT2: a single block and a short noticeboard thread is scant grounds to suppose that a 'newbie biting' culture existed. What did exist--and was well documented in case evidence--was a series of offsite campaigns by people who held a particular POV to manipulate Wikipedia articles toward their POV. The degree of organization varied, but they occurred across muliple fora whose participants were persistent. This created a significant dilemma for Wikipedians who contributed to the topic, since that manipulative element had already learned to exploit AGF by abandoning accounts after a few days or weeks and returning under new guises. How does one address that exploitation while maintaining a friendly welcome for genuine good faith newcomers? Shoemaker's Holiday's approach did not work, but neither did the community do well (imo) when consensus directed that indef block reviews occur on high traffic noticeboards where a percentage of threads inevitably get buried in the shuffle, and more pertinent to this review--the Committee's attempted solution wasn't any better. There has been a shortage of sysop attention for the site's touchier topics. A wise administrator who reads this case would take one very pertinent lesson from it: close CSDs, enforce 3RR violations, work on the image permissions backlogs, and don't even comment upon anything controversial. Eventually those festering messes will come to RFAR where the Committee that failed to assume good faith of site culture can cope with the result. We still need better site processes and policies, but that falls outside the Committe's remit. See fundamental attribution error. DurovaCharge! 05:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Martinphi

I seriously question whether he stayed away from Wikipedia for several months. My memory is that he was logging into the admin IRC network under his real name immediately after his case closed. Yes, Shoemaker appeared 18 February 2008 [64], while the case was closed 13 February 2008 [65]. Yet, Shoemaker states above "I left Wikipedia over it, and it was only the active, constant encouragement of User:Newyorkbrad, User:Durova and a few others that brought me back after several months." Whether or not he believes this to be true, I cannot say. If he believes it, he's in no condition to be an admin again. If he doesn't, he's in no condition to be an admin again.

I have been the victim of his continued harassment since I took part in his ArbCom and RfC. If any action would give him back his admin tools, then I strenuously object, as he has continued to be an abusive editor since his desysopping. He already tried, by the regular means, to get his tools back at an RfA. He lost. He has lost the trust of the community. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 20:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My memory is also that while the ArbCom did not adhere to strict protocol in the case, it nevertheless went out of its way to ensure a full and just hearing of the case. It actually suspended the case pending an RfC. I have absolutely no doubt that if the ArbCom had seen anything in the RfC which indicated that Vanished user should keep his admin buttons, the ArbCom would have revised the case. Indeed, I am fully convinced that there were things which Vanished user could have done to keep his buttons: he could simply have said he was wrong and wouldn't do it again. He didn't. I told him how to keep his buttons, and he didn't do it. I believe the ArbCom was open to being convinced that their initial judgment was wrong, and the RfC failed to convince them. Certainly, Vanished user had many friends, who essentially said "he fights trolls, so excuse him." But that's not an excuse, and the ArbCom knew it. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 21:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved party Verbal

I have only recently become aware of this, and fully endorse Jehochman's view: it would be very good to erase it completely. This was bad procedure and sets bad precedent. It should never have happened. Verbal chat 21:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Krill: I think blanked and vacated would be the best option here. Verbal chat 09:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Kirill by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

A case was vacated earlier this year, though I'd prefer slightly different wording. If it is to be vacated, perhaps the Committee can vote on a motion that will replace (blank) what's on the case pages: "The Committee declares that the decision viewable in the history is vacated and not in effect. The history of the case pages are preserved for transparency." The Committee may need to issue a further report, or further statements that can hopefully help heal the wounds of those involved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it would involve removing the case from the archives. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm still reviewing this request, but meanwhile a question.) What case was vacated earlier this year? Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brad, I think he is referring to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin. MBisanz talk 13:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that's the one - granted, the circumstances were of course somewhat different in that case, I bring it up as an example of how one has been vacated in the very recent past. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum

It is time to embrace the change in approach that the rest of Wikipedia (heck, the rest of the world) have been pushing for more and more recently - this will become even more evident in the next couple of elections. A case was vacated earlier this year; this is another one that needs to be vacated in the manner specified in Kirill's motion.

Tendentious editing, civil POV pushing, problem editing, or whatever else you want to call it, is by far, one of the biggest problems this project is facing. Nothing can be compared to the detrimental effects this has on Wikipedia, the community in general, or those individual users who unfortunately encounter this sort of behaviour regularly.

I've read through this case a couple of times in the past, as if it were any other case. When I noticed many uninvolved members of the community engaging in heated discussion about it off-wiki and criticized certain members of the Committee in an extreme manner, my curiosity was sparked to read it again. I read part of it again just now and this finding got me emotionally charged.

The experience I had when handling a particular problem editor (not that long ago) was disgusting. A number of checkusers (including arb emeritus or arbitrators), as well as admins and editors should have some recollection of who I am referring to. The amount of red tape and formalities I needed to go through (and the time and effort taken) were immensely horrible. It took weeks before there was enough evidence to justify a ban on that problem editor for disruption from sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry - and even that was with some luck. It took months before I was able to demonstrate (for the purposes of red-tape and formality) that the editor had been engaging in POV pushing, extreme rudeness, harassment and general disruption. In any case, I am certain we have all learnt from it. I'm not unexperienced in identifying problem editors - particularly from the sorts of expressions they use, the way they approach a dispute, and the way they approach a dispute. And I'm pretty sure I've been AGF'ing in this regard too. That said, I have no doubt that Matthew Hoffman was one such problem editor based on his contributions.

I was lucky to get through it because of a handful of users from different categories. However, many editors, including one very recently, was not so lucky and left Wikipedia as a result (an arbitrator was made aware of this recently). I appreciate the help the Committee provides in trying to resolve this problem, but this case does not do that; it does the opposite. A large number of the community are afraid to take action due to what may happen to them (i.e. what happened in this case). We're willing to desysop an admin for using some clue and taking action quickly, but we're unwilling to desysop admins who take no action at all? Yes, there were errors in his admin judgement sometimes, but RFC is supposed to provide a 2nd chance. In any case, it's a moot point anyway, as adminship isn't the point of clearing the case.

The case is having a causal effect on editors leaving the project due to the lack of support for community ridding the project of problem editors as early as possible. Such an outcome is not compatible with the goals of this project, and further shakes what confidence the community has in the Committee. I request that the case is vacated in the manner specified in Kirill's well-considered motion so that we can all move on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chaser

I was tangentially involved in this case. For the reasons stated by Durova above, I think the committee should simply blank the case, leaving Shoemaker's Holiday without his bit, but removing the restriction on how he might get it back. His not asking for it back gives ArbCom a good opportunity to correct their error without forcing them to the logical conclusion of making him an admin again.

The comments below belie how ArbCom decisions are treated in the community. ArbCom de-sysopping has been called the kiss of death for former admins returning to RFA; this was true for Shoemaker's Holiday despite the name change. Negative FoFs in a case follow editors (particularly project-space heavy editors) around the wiki. The final decision included adding a note to Hoffman's block log that ArbCom found the blocks to be unjustified. Shoemaker's Holiday, still an active editor, deserves at least the same consideration as someone no longer contributing here. He is asking for the Committee to once again officially acknowledge a mistake, but this time its own. In practical terms, replacing the page's contents with a big notice that the case has been vacated, à la Orangemarlin, is appropriate.--chaser - t 22:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Scott MacDonald

I've no knowledge/interest in this case, but note that Krill's motion is dangerously ambiguous. This is done with the understanding that Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs) shall consult with the Committee should he wish to become an administrator. Does Krill mean "consult prior to RfA" or "ask arbcom to resysop" (is an RfA required) and does "consult" mean "get the permission of" or "take advice from"? I've no dog in the race, but the motion is going to cause problems.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by JoshuaZ

The central claim made in the decision to desysop SH was that he was involved in a content dispute with Matthew Hoffman. Given that the last time SH had edited the page in question was 7 months prior to Hoffman's block, does the ArbCom acknowledge that this claim is incorrect? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Sticky Parkin

I have said before that having negative findings of "fact" against them is very vile for the individual, especially if it involves judgments about a person's character, dismissiveness or other obnoxiousness (not saying this is the case here, but in general.) It would be difficult to 'vacate' an entire case, but I think the person should be allowed right to reply at the bottom of the decisions page if they feel false things have been said about them, otherwise a final judgement is made against them which will stand on wikipedia for years to come. Definitely an addendum should be added by the arbs if some false things they said about someone are later seen to be false- or those comments the arbs made which are later seen to be false should be struck out. Or is there Arbcom Infallibility? Clearly not as I like to think we're all partly human, and that arbcom can sometimes admit any errors or excessive obnoxiousness. Sticky Parkin 02:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of common ground by MastCell

It seems like significant common ground exists, though the emotions inspired by this case seem to have everyone talking past each other. I sense from the Arbs' comments that they see at least some validity in the idea that this case was poorly handled. The resistance to vacating it seems to stem from the belief that the case's conclusions were valid, even if its execution was suboptimal.

Why not just append a resolution indicating that the Arbitration Committee recognizes deficiencies in the handling of this case (ideally, the deficiencies could be enumerated; I offer a modest example here)? That the Committee intends to learn from those deficiencies, in the interest of quality improvement, but at the same time affirms the final remedies as valid? I hear SH saying that the case was handled unfairly, and I hear FT2 saying, "Well, maybe, but the end result was valid." Folks, those are not mutually exclusive viewpoints. MastCell Talk 18:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk notes

Arbitrator comments

  • I'm open to doing something constructive here in principle; but I'm not quite sure precisely how that might be framed. Arbitration cases are explicitly not binding precedent (and not really even advisory precedent); so the "case law" analogy doesn't really work. We don't, therefore, have any established method for vacating a case, per se—overturning it, yes, but not vacating it. What would you like to see in practical terms? A blanking of the case pages? A motion naming the case as being "vacated"? Or something else? Kirill (prof) 01:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenting in general, I think that there is here too great an assumption that arbitration on wikipedia works in a quasi-legal fashion with notions of fairness to the parties applied as they would be in a criminal law case in an adversarial court system. That is not how it works. The concept of fairness applies primarily to the project as a whole. Where a user is being disruptive for matters outside their control, then arbitrators must still act to restrict them to prevent disruption even if doing so appears to be unfair or harsh on the user. To express it another way, the key issue is the disruption and not what lies behind it. In this immediate case the active members of the committee at the time (I was not participating, having only just been appointed) have apologised for the way the case was handled, but not for the decision.
Where that does come in is when we assess whether to remove restrictions. If a user has been disruptive because of some definite cause, and that cause no longer applies, then we ought to remove any restrictions placed on them because they are no longer needed. In this case I see a great deal of argument about whether the original case was decided appropriately but I see precious little to inform me about what positive actions are requested, and how they would benefit Wikipedia. I would like to see this point argued before I go to vote. I endorse everything Kirill says above about the uselessness of 'precedent'; the committee refuses to be bound by precedent so in effect it does not exist as such. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Shoemaker's Holiday: I'm afraid that yet again a request for information about how to benefit the project going forward has been met with information about how decisions in the past were wrong. The most that I think can be done is to courtesy blank the Matthew Hoffman case, and I'm willing to support that, but formally 'vacating' it would be a meaningless act. I am at a loss to know how you interpret Morven's comments as an invitation to disclose confidential information to the community: they are instead plainly a statement that any application for your resysopping should go to the committee in order to preserve confidentiality. As you are not at present applying for resysop the issue does not arise anyway. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What remedy do you seek? I doubt the Committee would consider revisiting the outcomes, given the facts as they existed then and now. Blanking would achieve little, given that your account was already renamed, the case of course existing under the username of the user you blocked. If people are in a mood to be revisiting things, then let's revisit the discussion of problems in our admin culture that was the substratum to the case, which has not proceeded in all this time. --bainer (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I joined Arbcom a month into the case, and so one of my first questions was to review it carefully. The case was initially brought to get a review of the rise in "newbie biting" culture, by reviewing the behavior of those involved in the Matthew Hoffman block and its declined unblock, and assessing if Shoemaker's Holiday had acted properly as an administrator. By itself, this was one block 2 months previous to the case. It would probably not have led to a serious result of the form Charles Matthews had requested. The case was formally accepted due to the divisive issues and to help resolve doubts, a reasonable view. Charles' Matthews also stated that a good explanation was still outstanding despite email requests chased up on the users' talk page in November.

    On that basis, I would consider the case valid. But that wasn't all. By the time I reviewed, I found that there had not been just one mildly questionable block 2 months before the case. There had been multiple clear misuses of admin access, not just one, documented – easily sufficient (in my book) to show a pattern, and easily enough for an RFAR or a request to the Committee to take action. (See for example Findings of Fact # 3, 4, and 9.1.) It is common for a case to be accepted, and then adjust to take account of new factors that are presented in evidence. In this case the new factors included a worrying number of "bad" blocks, not just one. The most recent had been mere days before the case opened, ie at the end of November (and 19 hours before the RFAR case request was posted), not 2 months previous. Any one of those blocks alone might have been enough to formally warn an administrator at RFAR.

    It is obvious and clear that the case process, handling, and so on, was extremely upsetting to Shoemaker's Holiday, some of which I agree with him on, some of which I think he's leaning on too much and isn't merited. Most of the case is history, and that's good. Shoemaker's Holiday has gotten past the issues mostly and that's good. But vacating the case would be asking for agreement the case was not valid, and should never have been heard, and I can't agree on that. I can only agree it should have been heard better in terms of handling than it was - a state of affairs for which numerous statements of apology have been sought and given and I'm at a loss to see what yet another can do. The case (and its final decision) were viable; the "how it got there" which is the issue, is secondary and has been discussed at length. The notion of "I need this case vacated for my own personal peace of mind" doesn't work for me since arbitration cases exist to serve the project, and there was a clearly reasonable and well evidenced project need for it (since bad adminship is a serious concern), even if this could have been processed, documented and followed up a lot better than it was. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(On a side, even if one looks at the initial grounds of the case (the block of Matthew Hoffman) alone, and nothing else, not one user has shown good evidence that 1/ Matthew Hoffman's block was in fact correct, 2/ The decision that condemned that block was unreasonable, or 3/ That an administrator who makes such a block, leading to controversy between administrators, should not have their block directly reviewed at RFAR. In fact it is the norm for desysop requests to go to RFAR without "prior dispute resolution". That Charles may have spoken poorly in his comments, does not change that the case was valid and accepted. FT2 06:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Update - I also reviewed the "remedies posted within 24 hours" claim, since it seems pivotal to the complaint. In fact one arbitrator did clearly jump the gun - Uninvited Company, who posted the proposed findings of fact and remedy on December 3rd. However if you look closely, not one other arbitrator followed suit. Principles are easy to agree (they don't change much, it's often obvious on day #1 what principles are involved, and they act as "recitals" of policy points likely to have been considered). But the next support for any finding of fact or remedy was on December 8, almost a week after the case opened, and well after much of the evidence (including personal disclosures by Vanished user) had been posted and examined.
I anticipate and accept though, that to Vanished user the post on Dec 3 by Uninvited Company might well have looked like a decision was already made, and may have made him feel there was no point posting a more robust response. I feel that post was exceptionally unhelpful, since there was no way at all that it could be more than a largely speculative proposal at that time, and prone to significant amendment. But this should not be read as endorsement that the case itself finally was wrong; the final finding was of misuse of admin access and when I reviewed in January on joining, and again this last week, this conclusion was very clear and exceptionally well evidenced.
(As a side note, one of my first recommendations for change in January 2008, was that a proposed decision should not be posted until 7 days into the case at minimum, for most cases, exactly because of my awareness of this matter.) FT2 (Talk | email) 16:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

There are 10 active arbitrators (excluding one recusal), so the majority on these motions is 6.

1) All pages of the Matthew Hoffman case shall be blanked and replaced with a notice that the case is vacated. This is done with the understanding that Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs) shall consult with the Committee should he wish to become an administrator.

Support:
  1. Kirill (prof) 21:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. After reading the discussion that are happening all over Wikipedia on this topic now, and remember the past discussions, I think that we need to step up and recognize that we got this wrong and fix it. We need to vacate this ruling. If needed we can write a short factual statement that explains the reason for the desysop. This is better than having a standing ruling that much of the Community thinks is dead wrong. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Second choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Would not vacate, for reasons above. Whatever the closure value of this might be, and however much upset some parts of the handling may have caused, the roots of the case itself were serious, valid, and the case appropriately brought to RFAR, when I reviewed it. Many users have objections to an RFAR case where they were parties, but vacating a case implies more than "some process lapses". It would imply the entire case had no grounds, or that a massive mistake of fact that was later recognized, means that the beliefs the decision was based upon, were grossly mistaken. Even if one looked at the initial grounds of the case request alone, and nothing else, the case was valid. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No. I would support courtesy blanking but not 'vacating'. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Prefer 1.3 below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.1) All pages of the Matthew Hoffman case shall be courtesy blanked. This is done with the understanding that Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs) shall consult with the Committee should he wish to become an administrator.

Support:
  1. Second choice, although frankly I can't fathom what the benefit of blanking but not vacating is, at this late stage. Kirill (prof) 05:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support although I do not think we need a motion to do it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not enough. If we need to start over and write the an accurate factual statement about why he lost the tools, then we can do it. Blanking a ruling helps, but there are real issues with the ruling that need to be addressed, I think. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Prefer 1.3 below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.2) All pages of the Matthew Hoffman case shall be blanked with an edit summary saying, "The Matthew Hoffman case ruling is no longer active", and will be replaced with the statement, "After receiving feedback about the use of his administrative tools, Shoemaker's Holiday voluntarily agreed to give up his tools and in the future to consult with the Arbitration Committee should he want to have them returned."

Support:
  1. Adam and I discussed wording and he agreed to something along these lines. (Adam, I tweaked it a little but don't think I changed the meaning of our agreed wording. Let me know if you think differently.) I think that this is a fair statement about what happened. Mistakes were made by many people in this situation. It is for the best if we all put it behind us and move on. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC) First choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill (prof) 01:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Oppose on grounds that "the case ruling is no longer active" is a meaningless phrase. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Prefer 1.3 below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.3) In light of all the circumstances presented, the findings and remedies contained in this committee's decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman are withdrawn insofar as they reflect adversely on the editor identified as "Vanished User." A notation to this effect will be made on the case pages, which have already been courtesy blanked. This action is based on the cumulative circumstances, and does not constitute a precedent for the routine withdrawal or vacating of arbitration decisions based on later disagreement with the decisions reached. The committee notes that after receiving feedback about the use of his administrator tools, Shoemaker's Holiday voluntarily agreed to give up his tools and to consult with the Arbitration Committee should he wish to become an administrator in the future.

Support
  1. After careful consideration, propose this wording as the best expression of what should reasonably be done. Uncharacteristically, I will not add further to the very substantial discussion that the case has already received. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is fine too. Kirill (prof) 06:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I can accept this wording and hope it helps remove some of the hurt in this case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Works for me. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose

  1. On principle. Findings that were properly decided, and accurately represent principles, actions, incidents, decisions, and communal norms related to these, would remain valid. I'm not quite sure how one "unfinds" that admin tools were misused, for example, when the evidence even on review makes it clear to an uninvolved administrator or user that this was the case. While I am acutely aware of the hurt felt (I've been a strong supporter of Shoemaker's holiday for as long as I've known him), any party in any case may feel "hurt" -- this isn't a good enough reason for removing valid verifiable findings of a case even if the processes that case followed leave a lot to be desired. This would be the same regardless of any standing of the requesting party.

    The aim in this motion is to reduce the upset felt by a user, which I support... but at the cost of "unfinding" matters that genuinely took place and that were rightly deemed improper by the Committee, undertaken by that user. Specifically, multiple other users were blocked, and multiple other users were prevented from editing by utterly wrongful protection applied by an administrator who was heavily involved in editing "against" them; some users were described on the wiki as vandals who were not. These users mattered too. The level of pragmatism required to "unfind" these points is not one I feel is good precedent, or a wise compromise. I am unable to endorse a proposed decision to do so. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Motion to amend Bharatveer case

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

Statement by Toddst1

Bharatveer (talk · contribs) has a long history of disruption of Wikipedia, particularly on India-related articles. Before and as the subject of remedies and restrictions from the previous RFAR, he or she has been blocked numerous times for 3RR violations, parole violations and most recently by me for incivility and disruptive editing, bringing the number of blocks to a total of 10. 4 of these blocks occurred after the previous RFAR. The restrictions and remedies meted out in previous RFAR: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Bharatveer#Remedies expired 3 weeks ago on 21 October 2008.

Since the subsequent blocks are the result of very similar issues to the previous RFAR, (reverting in violation of restriction, 3RR, incivility) and it is clear that this problematic editor has not changed his or her problematic pattern of editing, I am asking that the duration of the previous remedies and restrictions be extended for at least another year, and possibly tightened at the committee’s discretion.

Bainer's request for further evidence: Bharatveer's Block log is the evidence. Is more needed than that? Toddst1 (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to bainer's question: I couldn't call my involvement a content dispute:

I hope this helps.Toddst1 (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I welcome a review of my actions here (as I did at ANI), I ask that the arbs review the statement by Dseer from the original case as I think it is applicable and appropriate here - specifically the part about dealing with other editors. (I haven't observed any bigotry) Toddst1 (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pectore

While Bharatveer has some major editing issues (I would personally suggest a long Wikibreak, as that should clear the ol' cranium a bit), we need to look at the conflict on such pages more holistically and perhaps look at other users involved in this edit-warring. My philosophy is that it takes two to tango, and that as a failed mediation case shows, there is a gigantic dichotomy of perception between certain groups here. Incivility and belligerence is sadly the norm on both sides of the dispute, and I've certainly witnessed some vile invective and falsification, the most humorous from users discussing the validity of english language sources who can barely speak English themselves.

Point by point look at issues raised.
  • Hindu Taliban is a gigantic neologism. I personally think its notable and would not vote delete on it, but a report filed by some trolling IP is meaningless. South Asian articles are filled with these ideologues, hoping to gain their fifteen seconds of fame. Unless we see more evidence of wrongdoing, theres nothing here to go off of. I can see where BV is coming from on this issue, but I think there is enough legitimate criticism of such a nebulous term that he is missing by concentrating solely on elimination.
  • The Binayak Sen article is a huge clusterfuck. The article needs to be shortened, and Bharatveer's version made the article almost readable. If anything he should be commended for confronting a hagiographical IP warrior.
  • Chandrayaan - Bharatveer is definitely at fault here. I see no reason to remove the statement of Obama. The world revolves around America, get over it. However, let us see what BV has to say. ;)
  • His accusations hardly merit a block in any way. There is no justifiable basis for using an almost civil statement as a pretext for a punitive block, when that is not even the purpose of a block.
  • Wikipedia:Ani#Block_review_please brought no real consensus. Moreschi supported the block, Gnagarra didn't.
  • Also I would request Bainer to bring forth his evidence of Todd's edit warring, so that we can view that in light of Todd's case.

Ayubowan.Pectoretalk 04:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dseer = worthless evidence

Dseer appears to be little more than an attention-craving troll, whose testimony is extremely suspect. He seems to be an ideologue, whose evidence was countered by a few users 1, 2. Both these users certainly had their own issues, but the fact of the matter is that testimony from ideologues is meaningless.Pectoretalk 02:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otolemur crassicaudatus

Pot. Kettle. Black. Really? Here's what 30 seconds of digging got me

  • Removing an extremely well sourced criticism of the Communist Party of India. Hmm, interesting how you accuse Bharatveer of the same
  • Use of ideologues (Arundhati Roy) to create illusions of societal criticism [66][67], when under no interpretation of WP:RS or WP:BLP is such non-expert testimony welcomed.

Again, pot, kettle, black. What we have are two users in glass houses throwing stones at each other. lol.Pectoretalk 02:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Googlean

A bad hand sock used solely for POV pushing is calling out a POV pusher? Thank you for defending Wikipedia, Googlean. Administrators can view a relevant ANI thread and a relevant Sockpuppet case for more details.Pectoretalk 02:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looks like Googlean has been indefinitely blocked for being a sockpuppet of Avineshjose.Pectoretalk 02:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tinucherian

Apparently, Tinucherian and Googlean are fighting the evil Hindutva cabal on Wikipedia. Never mind that half this "cabal" isn't even Hindu. Gigantic ideologue if I ever saw one.Pectoretalk 02:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In short

Basically a bunch of trolls throwing accusations around at Bharatveer (with the exception of Todd and Relata refero) when they have amazingly bad problems with POV-pushing, edit warring, and incivility themselves. If Bharatveer is blocked, Wikipedia certainly can do without the "crusaders for truth" as well, with their fanciful ideas of "cabals" and such.Pectoretalk 02:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Bharatveer

I believe that User:toddst's response results from his non-implementation of a core WP policy of "Assuming good-faith". According to User:Toddst, he started his "actions" after an ANON reported at AIV AIV_editdiff(12:01, 11th November). Please see the article Binayak Sen. Please note that many WP editors (including me) have reported the edits of this particular SPA even before.)see Talk:Binayak Sen & my request for intervention at User:Flewis's talkpage (edit_diff@User_Flewis)(Time 11:48;10th November). Please see my contributions at Binayak Sen. I had tried to clean up that article within WP policies and guideline. I had tried to add more references and I had tried to "balance" the article by "removing" statements from different organisations, which was "irrelevant" to the article. Please see how another uninvolved editor (User:Shovon) also tried to bring admin intervention in the article. User:Toddst instead of seeing all these has in turn accused me of WP:OWN.

Just after this, he made a string of edits ( wikistalking) where he tried to modify/ remove most of my edits in different un-related pages (please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Toddst1).(Articles include Tehelka, where he "moved" my added reference to another section; Hindu Taliban, an afd page initiated by me , where user:Toddst personally attacked me and finally at Chandrayaan.

Please note User:Toddst's remark at AFD page and his conclusion of my edits in Chandrayaan page. It will be very clear that User:Toddst instead of "Assuming good faith" is doing just the reverse. He says "You really seem to be on a roll here. What's up with this edit? It seems like the information you are removing is well sourced, well placed, and on topic. Frankly your action here looks like either vandalism or POV pushing. Stop. Toddst1 (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)" In this case , I had just removed "politics" from a "scientific" article( note that comments from NASA & ESA were not removed). User:toddst needs to explain his edits here as to why he felt my edits were "Vandalism". I would like to conclude my statement this arbcom proceeding need to stopped as it is very clear that there is nothing "substantial" in User:Toddst arguments. Also please note User:Toddst attempts to gather "support" (from admins who had previously blocked me).-Bharatveer (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note User:Toddst's reason for blocking me([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toddst1&diff=prev&oldid=251093994 edit_diff@todd).-Bharatveer (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Transcribed from User's talk page)

Fellow editors, Please note that User:Toddst's explanation is still pending regarding my "block" . As per the block message , I was accused of "vandalism" charges. I request fellow WP editors to have a re-look at my contributions (mainly Binayak Sen & Chandrayaan.(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bharatveer). In Binayak Sen article, Please see the "clean-up work" i did (BinayakSen_cleanupVersion). Please see the talkpage,(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Binayak_Sen), where i tried with many other WP editors to stop SPA's attempts to push their propaganda. It should also be noted that, I had tried to bring "admin-Intervention" in this article. In this context, User:toddst should explain how these edits will constitute "vandalism". Please note that even regarding 3RR, I had tried to be within limits of this rule, while editing this article. Even if, this charge of 3RR is true, it should be noted that I was the only person who got blocked due to this(which shows the One-sided nature of this block). I have been in WP for at least 2 years now , I am seeing for the first time , an AFD creation and a removal of political statements from a scientific article being labelled as POV charges. It should also be noted that after my previous Arbcom restriction, Many WP Editors have tried to discredit my WP edits pointing out the arbcom restrcition on me. ( for eg. Please see edit_diff@Kerala).-Bharatveer (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Editors like User:Tinu Cherian and others have raised false allegations that all my edits are biased( hindutva??), But I submit that I have tried to edit WP by following all WP policies ( NPOV, WP:cite etc). Please see my contributions at Shehrbano Rehman ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shehrbano_Rehman&action=history); Barkha Dutt([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barkha_Dutt&action=history);, which would prove otherwise.-Bharatveer (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I request arbcom to take a re-look at my previous block. If you would see, one of my previous blocks was for "removing" messages from my user page. I was blocked for my comments""vandalistic edits from an unresponsive editor who revels in deleting discussion from article talk page". The reason for block was given as "Incivility & disruptive editing".(see Usertalkpage_BV. Even in the last block, User:Toddst's reason was for making "making false accusations of "personal attacks", and "Harassment" against him. Please see User_talk:Bharatveer.-Bharatveer (talk) 06:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Otolemur crassicaudatus

Bharatveer (talk · contribs) has a history of chronic POV pushing in India related articles which is primarily characterized by an extreme form of Hindu fundamentalism. I am giving here only a few examples of his disruptive edits:

Bharatveer is a pro-Hindutva POV pusher and is well versed in misinterpretation of various Wikipedia policies to serve his own POV. His contributions are primarily in India and Hindutva related articles, and with POV. He was warned many times, but did not change his behavior. This is the time to take final decision. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further false accusation by Bharatveer

After my statement above in this case, Bharatveer has falsely accused me of making personal attack against him. I have asked him to point out where is the personal attack. Per WP:NPA, Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack. Bharatveer has already crossed the line and I hope the arbitrators will be able to find a solution to deal with this user. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tinucherian

I regret to say Bharatveer (talk · contribs) has a long history of POV pushing, edit warring and disruptive editing on Hinduism and Christianity and other religious violence related articles.

With all these disruptive editing , It is clear that Bharatveer is hindrance to very purpose of Wikipedia. He was warned many times, but never did he try change his behavior and be constructive. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A RFCU on Bharatveer Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bharatveer was filed to help arbitation. -- Tinu Cherian - 12:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pectore , I request you to stop bad faith and baseless accusations aganist all others. I am not fighting any "evil" Hindutava cabal. A wikipedia it is my duty to uphold the interest of wikipedia , so that its content is NPOV, reliable and verifible. Can you point to one instance that I have tried to do any kind of POV push like Bharatveer or Jobxavier. Half the cabal is not Hindu ? You must be kidding ? First of all, please seperate Hindu and Hindutva . I have probably more knowledge of Hinduism than you and have great respect and appreciation for the religion. As a avid reader of theology, history and religion, I have more sacred and religious books of Hinduism and Islam that you might probably have. Btw Jobxavier is a fake christian username and it is not rocket science to understand the interests of Jobxavier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and his socks ( See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jobxavier and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jobxavier ) -- Tinu Cherian - 07:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by googlean

I am too very sorry to comment that Bharatveer has a history of disruptive editing in religious articles, especially POV hands in Hinduism and Christianity related stuffs. I wish to present some evidences below:

  • Later, in this edit, he removed a reliable source of NDTV & pushed pov from an unreliable source.
  • I later moved to RS/N to gather more opinions. However, instead of discussing the issue, Bharathweer started edit-warring with me over that unreliable source in Religious violence in Orissa.

With above interactions with me, I strongly feel that Bharathveer has POV hands in Hindu related articles & on the other hand, well knowledgeable in Wikipedia policies which he misinterprets to support his POV’s. Thanks. --Googlean Results 07:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Relata Refero

If the ArbCom deems it necessary, I can dig up episodes from earlier this calendar year, when User:Bharatveer was on the editing restriction of 1RR/W, and actually made one revert a week to regularly several articles. At the very least, s/he needs to be kept on this editing restriction. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moreschi

Kindly ban. It's time we washed our hands of this user. Quite apart from anything else, I'm bored of blocking him. Moreschi (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Please provide Bharatveer with notice of this request. If he wishes to respond while he is blocked, he can post a statement on his talkpage and a Clerk should copy it to the appropriate section here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at Bharatveer's recent behavior, this seems to be a pretty obvious case; I've proposed a pair of motions below. Kirill (prof) 01:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see a presentation of evidence (and a response from Bharatveer) before voting on any motions. Toddst1, you also seem to have been in a content dispute with Bharatveer when you blocked him ([72]), would you like to explain that? --bainer (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

1) Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

There are 11 active Arbitrators, so a majority is 6.

Support:

  1. First choice. Kirill (prof) 01:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. Last year's editing restrictions did not stop the disruptive editing so this year a different approach is needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. The requisite improvement in behaviour since last year's case is manifestly absent. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Third choice, prefer 1.2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1.1) Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to a comprehensive editing restriction indefinitely. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If he exceeds this limit, fails to discuss a content reversion, or makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling in the Bharatveer case.

There are 11 active Arbitrators, so a majority is 6.

Support:

  1. Second choice. Kirill (prof) 01:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice, prefer 1.2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Third choice. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1.2) Based upon multiple incidents of inappropriate editing despite prior restrictions imposed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer, Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of 60 days. Following this period, Bharatveer is subject to a comprehensive editing restriction indefinitely. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If he exceeds this limit, fails to discuss a content reversion, or makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for an appropriate length of time up to 90 days. After three such blocks, he may be blocked for up to one year.

There are 11 active Arbitrators, so a majority is 6.

Support:

  1. Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Third choice; I don't think a two-month block is going to be particularly beneficial here. Kirill (prof) 06:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Also, second choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:


Motion of clarification in the Tobias Conradi case

In that case, the ArbCom took the line that userspace is not to be used to keep "laundry lists of grudges". This was in a remedy, rather than explicitly given as a principle. The general question of what can and cannot be placed in userspace is addressed also by WP:NOT, and in the end comes down to whether given postings help the mission. Combining the explicit principles in that case, with the thought in the remedy, and policy, gives some relevant concepts on the acceptable use of userspace. The following represents our current interpretation.

Certain kinds of uses are impermissible. These include but are not limited to:

  • Lists of grudges, problem users, diffs, just to make a point.
  • In general, there should not be negative postings of the attention-seeking kind.
  • Blogging: userspace is not for general commentary.
  • Pre-emptive developments running ahead of community or ArbCom sanctions

Certain kinds of uses are permissible:

  • Userspace may be used to warehouse diffs, but only when intended as part of drafting for active dispute resolution.
  • Essays are obviously OK (use Category:Wikipedia essays, and {{essay}}, saying this is what they are). By their nature essays deal with “issues, not personalities”. If they ever cross that line, from the general issue to particular and personal allusions, they lose their privileged status.
  • Drafts of political as well as policy pieces are OK, say ahead of elections. It is helpful if they are dated and headed to indicate this.
  • Support for enforcement of existing sanctions, where there is a real and present need to share information.

Comment by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

Procedural objection: the case is over a year old, and AGK's proposal could be made policy through the normal procedure of simply editing WP:USER, the official content guideline for such things, or by discussing it on the talk page of same. There is no reason for the Arbcom to get involved, the connection to the case is at best highly tangental, and the Arbcom really shouldn't be in the habit of revisiting old cases simply to make a non-urgent policy rewrite.

Obviously, AGK's good faith is not in question - he was probably simply unaware of WP:USER. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding what is happening here. AGK reformatted the motion - the motion itself was offered by Charles Matthews. Avruch T 04:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the formatting is unclear, however, this only makes arbcom's rejection in favour of Charles editing WP:USER more important: In the recent RFC on the arbcom, there was a a strong objection to what was seen as Arbcom writing policy. If arbcom decides to actually write policy by fiat, based on revisiting a year-old case, it would cause excessive controversy, all of which could be easily avoided if the Arbcom simply went to WP:USER as respected members of the community and declaring their support for Charles' change. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that WP:USER already makes clear that content is only permitted with the consent of the community, this seems beside the point. Since the motion was drafted after I consulted on the ArbCom list, I'd be surprised if it didn't represent the "current interpretation", as it says. If I'm wrong about that, well, I'm wrong. It seems clearest to proceed in this way, clarifying first. Maybe there will be commentary that could be illuminating. (The clerk is just doing the clerk's job here, but the system has got Procrustean and templated.) Charles Matthews (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, Shoemaker, I do know what WP:USER is. :)
Avruch has succinctly outlined precisely what I'm thinking here: I was clerking this thread, not making a motion. (Incidentally, only an Arbitrator may do that.)
AGK 12:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, the layout was really unclear as to who made the motion. Your signature was the only one near the motion.
On Charles Matthews' point - I'm really uncomfortable with the increase in arbcom power that this motion would represent - it effectively gives Arbcom the right to make policy simply by finding any past case to which the policy can be connected. Charles Matthews makes excellent suggestions for additions to WP:USER, and they could, in all likelihood, be added there uncontroversially by Charles as an editor. But an arbcom declaration in the same line puts any future decisions on the matter outside of the community's decision. It would mean that User page policy would, from then onwards, only be changeable by appeal to Arbcom.
The basic problem is that, as there is no evidence that the community is unable to handle user page policy, nor that community-based means for implementing this have even been tried, going for the "nuclear option" of Arbcom-declared policy as the first option seems, at the very least, to set a bad precedent; and, at the worst, could cause unnecessary controversy and drama. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can't agree to that. WP:USER is a content guideline, but it clearly needs to be read in the light of other policies, such as WP:NOT and WP:HARASS. Content guidelines aren't free-standing entities in their own little world. I'm sure that is common ground. There are some nuances involved, as the draft makes clear. There should be no need for another Arbitration case to deal with grudge-bearing on the site: once is enough. This is a motion to clarify, and if the same material had been appended in Tobias Conradi as commentary, or had been prompted by a request, I doubt we'd be discussing it in this fashion. At this level of detail, it isn't evident there is a need to write all this into WP:USER, but spelling out some of the considerations a year on makes sense to me. At the very least, some people aren't too aware of the "case law" on this matter. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Seddon (talk)

I would like to bring up some issues here. I have no intention of blowing this out of proportions but I had some concerns when reading this request for clarification.

  • Could you provide any recent evidence that the community has had issues with these types of pages?
  • If so, what evidence is there that the community has sought other venues to try and deal with these problems?
  • Has it got to the point where the community is unable to decide for itself?
  • If none of these happened why was this request simply not taken to the talk page of WP:USER?
  • Given that this is a guideline, it is not enforceable, and if, via this clarification it is being made enforceable doesnt it make it policy?
  • I was under the impression that ARBCOM avoided editting or creating policy?

I would be very glad if all of these questions could cleared up for me.

Seddσn talk Editor Review 00:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ncmvocalist (talk)

Had this been an ordinary request for clarification, I don't think there'd have been a problem here. Turning it into a motion that's explicitly stuck back into the main case page is one though - I'm surprised that the 3 of you have abstained to reduce the majority, rather than procedurally opposed given the legitimate concerns here. This motion gives all appearances that ArbCom are becoming legislative.

That said, I don't think anyone strongly disagrees with the proposals itself; rather, it's the manner in which its done. Why the reluctance to put it into policy? Its inclusion doesn't need to be limited to any one content guideline/policy (such as USER); the relevant parts can be put into relevant guidelines/policies (whether its HARASS or NOT or whatever else). WP:NLT was amended just before the Haines case closed so I don't see why this should be any different just because it would involve more than one page. Additionally, the proposals aren't remarkably 'new' - the community have come across these particular scenarios in the recent past and used common sense along with policy, rather than relying on any cases. So amending "case law" as opposed to "legislation" is questionable & unnecessary as far as this issue is concerned - I don't think we have, or ever will look to "case law" to handle what is specified in these proposals.

This should not be a motion to amend a previous case. If the Committee wants to give guidance (on request), it shouldn't be any more than a request for clarification that gets archived on the talk page of the case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Barberio

The Arbcom are entitled to vote for this resolution if they want to.

They may also vote on a resolution of if the moon is made of cheese.

Neither of the votes can have any effect.

The Arbitration Policy is clear on this, ArbCom have no ability to create new policy by fiat, no matter if they can tangentially link it to a case.

Charles, I think this borders on an abuse of your station as Arbitrator to push for policy changes you want, and you should probably withdraw it and use the normal process of changing policy by consensus. What you ask for isn't greatly objectionable, but this is not the way to do it.--Barberio (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Background note from Avruch

A recent case where the motion offered would have an impact can be found here. I'm sure that Charles Matthews left it out because the principle has wider application and might not fit perfectly with this particular incident. Avruch T 03:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A small point from Fut.Perf.

I stumble over this: "Lists of grudges, problem users, diffs, just to make a point." (my emphasis).

There's a bizarre tendency in Wikipedia-internal jargon, inspired no doubt by that infamous essay, to treat the expression "to make a point" as if it denoted something bad. Worse, it appears that many people use the phrase "you are just making a point!" to mean: "you are saying something I don't like". Let me point out that to make points is the whole point of – well, of what? Language. Communicating. Why on earth would anybody ever write down anything if not in order to get his point across? My point being, please point out more precisely what you mean at that point. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually as in "We know where you live". People don't say that to start a conversation. What is another concise way to explain why they say that? Charles Matthews (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to get your point. Are you seriously comparing the collection of wikipedia complaints to a veiled threat of physical violence? (That, incidentally, is a "concise way to explain why they say that" other phrase). – But anyway, on further consideration, I think I agree with Shoemaker's Holiday. There is no indication the community isn't able to decide on its own what the legitimate limits of userspace writing are. As long as the community is not in an intractable, serious and divisive impasse about how to handle this issue, you guys have no business deciding what the policy should be. – By the way, "Pre-emptive developments running ahead of community or ArbCom sanctions" is another one that goes beyond my semantic guessing capacities. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A small point from Jehochman

The second motion specifies what can be kept for the purpose of "dispute resolution". What about keeping lists of diffs or notes about other editors (possibly of a derogatory nature) for elections, such as WP:ACE2008, WP:RFB and WP:RFA? I think it would be good for clarity to explicitly add or exclude such uses. Jehochman Talk 05:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Durova

Committee members, you should be proposing this on the guideline talk page in your normal role as editors. When and if the community tries and fails to resolve such matters and all normal means have been exhausted, then an arbitration motion along these lines might become credible. No evidence has been put forward that normal means have been tried and the initiating motion specifically expresses a desire to get ahead of events. Proactive changes are the community's responsibility. As a body you are the last step in dispute resolution. Both the original motion and the alternate are profoundly out of order. DurovaCharge! 15:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • There are two issues here. The general principle that user space is for matters that benefit the project, and remains communally owned and subject to community feelings. If used to hold contentious "blame lists" these need to be well justified in line with the traditional principle that once something's over, it's history. If there is contentious problematic material then ultimately it is a wiki page, not MySpace. This is a principle covered in Wikipedia:User pages, and which we referred to and affirmed in our decision "RFAR/Tobias Conradi". But that was all we did. We did not create policy, not change it, we affirmed what was already well established as being written within existing norms.

    Administrators may need assurance that they will not be treated as misusing administrative tools, if they were stricter on deleting or blanking such content that appears to be problematic in user space. That's fair to raise, since ultimately if there were a question, we would be asked to rule on it. I'd feel comfortable saying how I see the aim of that guideline, and how I'd handle such content, and to give assurance/guidance that some kinds of action will not usually be seen as a problem by us, as measured against norms of the community. Those are well within our usual remit. I would not however require Arbcom to write policy or guidelines in doing so. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

{Here should be placed the precise text of the motion—that is, what decision is to be passed, and what current case decision it should supersede. Or, alternatively, here should be placed the text of the "official statement" supporting the decision. Clerk assistance available upon a shout! AGK 21:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

There are 10 active Arbitrators, so a majority is 6.
  • Support:
  1. Support Charles Matthews (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC) (proposing)[reply]
    Comment: the proposal below to move them into a case that will soon be voting is not anything I have a big problem with. They've been looked at here, and if they are in some way "folded" as comment into a case, that will serve. The content itself seems not to be so contentious for the ArbCom, so the draft has done its work. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per FloNight's vote: OK then, this turns into an annexe of a Workshop for something. Others please edit as necessary. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Clear enough, and will help deal with the issue we've had in which people cite the case as an exclusive, rather than inclusive, list. James F. (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:
  1. This issue comes up regularly and there is confusion about it so interpretation of the issue by ArbCom will be beneficial. But I also prefer including this in an active case for the reasons stated by Newyorkbrad. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We'll handle this in Kuban Kazak-Hillock65. Kirill (prof) 21:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In favor of #2 that is more solidly grounded. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The motion has been blanked. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain:
  1. Although I am in general agreement with Charles Matthews' proposals, and I do not believe any great harm would come of our adopting them in the fashion proposed here, there appears to be some objection that the action proposed would be somewhat legislative in character, i.e., the Arbitration Committee creating or revising policy outside the scope of a pending dispute. Working for the adoption of these ideas either through editing of WP:USER or by proposing them as principles in the pending Piotrus 2 and Kuban Kazak cases, both of which involve disputes over the use of userspace, may provide a more readily accepted vehicle for addressing the issues presented. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per NYB. This is really guidance rather than an actionable provision, but there are better venues available for putting this forward. Kirill (prof) 01:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I also agree with Brad. --bainer (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Alternate motion

2) The Committee affirms and clarifies the principle that was stated as a remedy in the Tobias Conradi case:

  1. User space is communally owned. It is generally left to the eponymous user to manage, for the benefit of the project, but within agreed communal guidelines. (The guideline Wikipedia:User page applies.)
  2. While users have wide discretion to use that space as they see fit, it is the Committee's understanding of present communal "best practice" and consensus, that lists of fault-finding diffs, users described as "problem users", negative postings, and other matters of a generally uncollegial kind, should be written only if needed, kept only for a limited period, and only for imminent use in dispute resolution or other reasonable and short term dispute handling. They should not be allowed - deliberately, through passage of time, good faith, wilful allusion, or neglect - to create some kind of perennial "hall of shame" or list of "disapproved, shunned or negatively viewed users".
  3. The Committee also notes that the community has long held that user space is not to be excessively used for blogging, promotion (including unreasonable self-promotion), and various other purposes.
  4. Users are encouraged to avoid keeping such content on the wiki when there is no good cause. Uninvolved users and administrators are encouraged to be willing to check whether such pages may be removed, if they appear to be dormant, redundant, or not presently "live".
  5. The Arbitration Committee affirms that it will not usually consider users who blank or (if necessary) delete such matters in user space, to have abused their editing or administrative access, provided:- the content was broadly of the types above, the deletion or blanking was in good faith, discussed (if possibly "live"), not excessive, and the matter handled courteously and reasonably, with administrative deletion avoided unless either egregious, agreed by usual processes, or historic revisions are being persistently linked (on or off wiki).
  6. As with other deleted content, provision of the content of such deleted pages to the userspace "owner" is at administrator discretion, if reasonably useful for future Wikipedia community purposes, and the user has good reason and appears to be requesting it for good faith purposes. Administrators should be aware that pages of this kind may contain egregiously (unhelpfully) disruptive, defamatory and/or privacy breaching material, and should redact these from any text forwarded, if they decide to do so.
Nothing written above is intended to discourage recording support and evidence concerning enforcement of an existing sanction, where there is a real and foreseeable project benefit to sharing information. However such matters should ideally be on a case page rather than userspace, where one exists.


  • Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC) I think this is how it should be said. #5 could be redundant or useful, I can't quite decide.[reply]
  2. Support as an analysis of policy and guidance to users as to how the committee is likely to view their questionable user sub-pages. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fine, although this could be condensed somewhat. Kirill (prof) 17:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Whatever - no surprise that FT2 and I write things differently. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Insufficiently concise, but yeah. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:
  1. Per my comment on the original motion and I'll explain further. I don't think we should use new motions for old cases as tools to address current issues unless absolutely necessary. Our rulings are not suppose to set precedents for future rulings or set policy, so unless an previous ruling needs to be adjusted for an serious error in a Fof or a remedy needs to be adjusted, cases ruling should be left unchanged. The issue of the Committee writing policy and guidelines is of great concern to many members of the Community. I think that we need to be sensitive to these concerns by limiting our use of our policy/guideline interpretation to active situation where clarification is needed to clear up a problem. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I quite understand the concern. If, though, remedies cannot in some sense be "promoted" to Principles in a case, retrospectively, then I think the way for example the Cla68 case was drafted seems less satisfactory. If we have to proceed from remedy "A, B and C shouldn't do negative thing X" by simply widening the list of editors, then we have some problem. "Negative thing X" should then have been thought of as a Principle, in the terms "Doing X is negative for the project, at least under the following circumstances." And the "circumstances" would need to be drawn up broadly. I think this is a recipe for verbiage. Having indicated "X is negative" in a remedy, the transition to "no one should do it, as far as we're concerned and in normal circumstances" is what people should read. We are not going to get everything tidily expressed, and clarifying our view later and when more bad tricks have been found is just housework, in my view. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain:
  1. Per my comment on the original motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=253060698"